Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Civil Service (Pensions)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the extra cost in 1963–64 of counting pre-1949 service in full in calculating Civil Service pensions.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): Seven and a half million pounds in respect of both continuing pensions and lump sums, and a further sum up to £24 million if lump sum payments already made were reassessed.

Mr. Lubbock: Now that a slightly More generous attitude appears to be prevailing at the Treasury, would it not be a good idea to take the opportunity of doing this in conjunction with the other measures to increase Civil Service pensions?

Mr. Barber: I do not think so, because at the time when this service was rendered there was no expectation that it would be allowed to count for more than half its length on subsequent establishment. Although the hon. Member refers to the extra cost in 1963–64, we would have to consider the total continuing cost, which would be about £300 million.

Members of Parliament (Press Cuttings Service)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the approximate annual cost of a Press cuttings service for Members of Parliament, employing eight assistants; and if he will consider providing such a service.

Mr. Barber: Six thousand pounds. The introduction of a Press cuttings service is a matter for the House authorities in the first place.

Mr. Allaun: Would not this be a small sum to pay for the better working of Members of Parliament, Parliament itself and democracy? If serious newspapers are not expected to function without such a Press cuttings service, surely Parliament should not be expected to do so? Does not the hon. Member think that the dice are loaded against private Members of Parliament, who have no such assistance, whereas Ministers not only have a Press cuttings service but staffs of expert civil servants to brief them?

Mr. Barber: I am sure that the dice are not loaded against the hon. Member. As I mentioned in my original Answer, this is a matter for the House authorities in the first place. Certainly on the information which I have at the moment I feel very doubtful whether we should be justified in incurring this additional cost at the expense of the taxpayer.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend investigate an anomaly in this field? Whereas a Member of Parliament who has a Press cuttings service personally is not allowed to charge the cost of it against his Schedule E Income Tax assessment, he can so charge it against Schedule D, as a self-employed person, if he is participating in television, radio and journalistic activities.

Mr. Barber: I will look into my hon. Friend's personal case and write to him about it.

Mr. Nabarro: I do both. That is the point.

Mr. Sydney Irving: The hon. Member says that this is the matter for the House to consider first. Is he aware that when the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) was Chancellor of the Exchequer he promised to give serious consideration to the purchase of the News Chronicle Press Service for use as a pooled service available to the 24 Government Departmental libraries and the House of Commons Library? Can the hon. Member say what happened to that consideration?

Mr. Barber: That is another matter, which I will look into. I will write to the hon. Member about it.

Mr. Hale: In spite of the amusement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he bear in mind that Members of Parliament, as such, are not entitled even to charge the expense of books, including reference books, or any form of information which they may require in relation to their duties? When I was in active practice as a solicitor all this could be charged to my office.

Mr. Nabarro: Against Schedule D.

Mr. Hale: This applies to a great many things. Will the Minister look into the matter? It is an astonishing fact that I can take a client to dine in the House of Commons, if that client has no special connection with the House, but that if the Mayor of Oldham dines with me the cost is not allowable.

Mr. Barber: In general, the attitude of the Inland Revenue to these matters is very reasonable. I cannot be expected to answer these supplementary questions on a Question which has nothing whatever to do with tax allowances for Members of Parliament.

University Places

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many places he expects will be provided in universities by 1966.

Mr. Barber: The target is 150,000 places in the academic year 1966–67.

Mr. Irving: In view of the continuing dissatisfaction of a number of universities with the grants announced earlier this year, despite the 20 per cent. increase in the building grant, is the hon. Gentleman certain that this target can be achieved? Is he not aware, further, that if it is achieved it will be totally inadequate, because it is clear that at least 185,000 students will be looking for places? In view of this fact, will not he reverse the disastrous policy of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), of awaiting the report of the Robbins Committee and, instead, announce at once a further measure of expansion in our universities?

Mr. Barber: No, Sir. We would be wise to await the report of the Robbins

Committee. As for the target of 150,000 places, we certainly expect to reach it.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what are his latest estimates, as advised by the University Grants Committee, on the total number of university places required in the next five years to meet increasing needs and demands; and how far these estimates provide for an increasing proportion of sixth formers to enter universities:
(2) in the light of the experience of the last few months which shows an increasing number of potential university students unable to secure university places, if he will reconsider the level of university grants so as to provide for a more rapid increase in the number of places.

Mr. Barber: I have nothing to add to the targets of student numbers already announced by the Government and the statements on this matter and the level of grants made by my right hon. Friend the former Chief Secretary and by myself.

Mr. Swingler: Does not the Treasury study the experience from year to year? Is not the Financial Secretary aware of the grave and widespread disappointment among potential students for university places? Is he aware of the increasing demand for university places and the fact that a large number who had many advance passes at G.C.E. level and applied to get into a university at the end of the last academic year were unable to do so because the Government had reduced the expansion of the number of places? Has not that been studied?

Mr. Barber: I fear that there will always be some potential students who will not be successful. Of course we recognise the increasing demand for places at universities. For this reason we have decided that over the next five years we shall set a target of 150,000 places, which is a 35 per cent. increase on 1961.

Miss Herbison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this target, according to the vice-chancellors of universities, will not even be reached? Is he aware that the target is far too low and that even by 1970 there will be young men and


women fully and well qualified to enter universities who will be knocking at the door and there will be no room for them? Does that not worry the Government?

Mr. Barber: As I said in answer to an earlier Question, we expect to reach the target. I ask the hon. Lady to bear in mind that when considering the expansion of higher education we must consider not only the places in universities but also the large number of additional places which we shall be providing in colleges of advanced technology and teacher training colleges?

Mr. Wainwright: Does not the Minister think it rather farcical that the Government should be so complacent about this matter? Is not he aware that, according to figures supplied by his own Department, the ratio is 1–19 of the relevant age groups for university places and that in five years' time it will me 1–22? Is not that rather disgusting?

Mr. Barber: If one takes into account the numbers we expect in all the spheres of higher education in five years' time, the proportion entering higher education will have increased, I estimate, by at least another 1 per cent.

Building Societies

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to control the financial policies of building societies.

Mr. Barber: No, Sir.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is not this one of the major sectors in the economy in which the public interest has no control? Does it not interfere with my right hon. Friend's policy of lowering interest rates, and is he satisfied with this position?

Mr. Barber: As I think my hon. Friend will remember, because I think he was a Member of the Committee which considered it, the Building Societies Bill, which we passed in 1960, introduced a fundamental change in the law governing the accounts and audits of building societies, which I think has proved to be generally satisfactory. With regard to interest rates, in the end I think the rates of interest on mortgages must remain a matter for settlement

between a society and its borrowers, because, apart from other matters, the circumstances of individual societies vary.

Mr. Fell: Is it not a fact that a major plank of Conservative policy is home ownership, and is it not pretty serious in these days for young people who want to buy their own homes to find that they cannot do so because of the very high rates of interest for mortgages?

Mr. Barber: I recognise the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers, but I do not think the right way to tackle them would be to do something which, if carried to its logical conclusion, would amount almost to the nationalisation of the building societies.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to control the rates of interest charged on mortgages by building societies.

Mr. Barber: No, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: Why do the Government continue to ignore the harsh burden of high mortgage interest on one of the thriftiest sections of the population, a rate of interest which goes up very quickly on the slightest provocation and comes down all too slowly? Will the hon. Gentleman at least commend the two or three building societies which, disregarding the advice of the Building Societies Association and following the good example of the Public Works Loan Board, have recently reduced their charges?

Mr. Barber: As I said, in the end the decision on these matters must rest with individual societies because they have to take into account their own local circumstances and financial position.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the rates of interest recommended by the Building Societies Association have kept pace with the reduction in the Bank rate?

Mr. Barber: That is not a matter for me as a member of the Government to answer.

Mr. Callaghan: The Minister said that it is not a matter for him, but does he not realise that the rates at present


charged by the building societies are frustrating the Government's stated intention of encouraging home ownership? Therefore, is it not a matter for him when some building societies reduce the rate of interest and others do not? Does it not warrant some inquiry from him as to the reasons?

Mr. Barber: I am delighted, and I am sure my right hon. Friend is delighted, when any particular society is able to reduce its rate of interest, but it is absolute nonsense to suggest that the Government are not encouraging home ownership and that a considerable increase in home ownership is not taking place. To say so is to ignore the facts.

Schedule A

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now take steps to implement the undertaking given by Her Majesty's Government to abolish liability to Income Tax, Schedule A, in 1963–64 for owner-occupiers of dwelling houses.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 6th November to the Question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke).

Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is on the same wavelength as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)? Does he propose to honour and implement fully the undertaking given by the previous Chancellor that Income Tax, Schedule A, as applicable to domestic hereditaments only, will be totally abolished in 1963–64? That is the nub of the matter, and my right hon. Friend did not answer that specific point before.

Mr. Maudling: I answered it precisely in the Answer to which I have referred.

Steel Company of Wales (Sale of Stock)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the £25 million Steel Company of Wales 5¾ per cent. second debenture stock was offered at 88½ per cent. in view of the fact that it is redeemable at 102 per cent.; how

much loss this sale will show on the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency's books; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maudling: The offer for sale of this stock was made by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in accordance with its statutory duty to secure the return of the steel industry to private ownership. Prior to the sale the Agency's book value of their investment in the company amounted to £27·025 million. The gross proceeds of the present offer will amount to £22·125 million.

Sir C. Osborne: Why should the Agency accept this big loss—that is the Question which I put—if there is any chance of Bank Rate coming down in the near future and of this stock being offered at a much higher price than at the big discount of 11½ points, at which it was put on the market? Why should the taxpayer pay all this money?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot comment on future movements of Bank Rate, but this stock was offered at market value, and I think that market experience since has proved that it was about the right figure.

Mr. Callaghan: Will not the Chancellor answer the question why this stock was put on the market at this time, considering that the Act has been on the Statute Book for nine years? Why choose this moment to involve the taxpayer in a substantial loss?

Mr. Maudling: The loss did not arise on the sale. The loss had already arisen because the market value had fallen. The Agency has a statutory duty progressively to dispose of the nationalised holdings, and this it is doing.

Sir C. Osborne: If there is any chance at all within a reasonable time of Bank Rate being reduced, this stock could have been offered, if not at par, at least at a smaller rate of interest? If the Chancellor is saying that conditions are such that Bank Rate will not be reduced, we must accept it as a somewhat unnecessary sacrifice by the taxpayers.

Mr. Maudling: I do not think the Agency should speculate on future movements of Bank Rate.

Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the future of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency.

Mr. Maudling: I have no statement to make on this matter at present.

Mr. Jay: Cannot the Chancellor tell us for how much longer he expects this organisation to go on operating at the public expense?

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. There is work still for it to do, and I do not think that at this moment I can anticipate when it will be completed.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the revised estimated yield of Purchase Tax in 1962–63; and how much yield is expected in that year from each, respectively, of the 10 per cent., 15 per cent., 25 per cent., and 45 per cent. rates of Purchase Tax, all figures expressed after the reduction of Purchase Tax on motorcars from 45 per cent. to 25 per cent.

Mr. Maudling: The revised Purchase Tax estimate for 1962–63 is £597 million. The anticipated yields from the individual rates requested by the hon. Member are £157 million; £30 million; £199 million and £211 million, respectively.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend consider the special position which now arises with those manufactured goods which remain on the 45 per cent. rate of Purchase Tax since he removed motor cars from it? Does he not regard, for instance, radios, television sets, cosmetics, and gramophones and discs as having an equally relative export potential as motor cars, and why should these important products be left out on a limb at the highest rates, while motor cars have been preferred by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Maudling: I explained to the House my reasons for the special move in the case of motor cars, which I think was fully justified. As far as the other items on the 45 per cent. rate are con-

corned, I shall be reviewing the whole Purchase Tax situation in connection with my forthcoming Budget.

Mr. Nabarro: Jolly good. I shall ask my right hon. Friend a lot more Questions about that.

Standard of Living

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made since 1954 towards doubling the nation's standard of living within 25 years.

Mr. Maudling: Between 1954 and 1961, the rise of real personal disposable income per head, which is the best statistical definition of the standard of living, has been at the rate of 3·3 per cent. per annum. This is a somewhat faster rate than would be required to double the standard of living in 25 years.

Sir Richard Pilkington: While I am sure that the Government are to be congratulated from all sides of the House, may I ask if my right hon. Friend does not agree that if this target is to be achieved one essential is that hon. Members opposite should remain opposite?

Mr. Maudling: That is, I think, demonstrable.

Dr. Bray: Is the Chancellor aware that the target which he has set up for "Neddy" will not maintain a rate of growth sufficient to double the standard of living in 25 years?

Mr. Maudling: This question was concerned with the experience between 1954–61, and as I was not responsible at that period, I can happily say it was very good.

Mr. Callaghan: Do not these figures show how unwise it is to rely on statistics in determining whether people are feeling better off or not? How does the Chancellor account for the fact that if we have "never had it so good" there is a widespread feeling in the country that conditions are exceedingly difficult, especially for certain groups of people who have never had it so bad, including the unemployed and the old-age pensioners?

Mr. Maudling: Of course, in any general average, there are bound to be particular areas of the country or


sections of people who are not up to that average, but this Question was about the average, and I have given an accurate Answer.

Government Expenditure (Public Services)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the increased spending on public services of 9 per cent. this year and of a further 9 per cent. next year as foreshadowed in Command Paper No. 1849, and the expected increase of national production of only 3 per cent. each year, what new steps he proposes to take to avoid further inflation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maudling: The increase in expenditure to which my hon. Friend refers relates to investment in the public services, not to total expenditure on these services. The Government took the decision to authorise this increase in expenditure after considering the ability of the economy to absorb it without inflationary consequences.

Sir C. Osborne: Does not the Chancellor agree that more than half of this capital expenditure shown on page 5 will be non-productive work? Does it mean that the Government, by accepting this, are accepting inflation as inevitable?

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir; certainly not. We thought, in view of the prospects for 1963, we could without danger of inflation increase public investment, particularly on such things as housing and schools, where I think it is very much needed.

Sir C. Osborne: But if my right hon. Friend expects national productivity to increase only by that 3 per cent., at the most, if we are to spend 9 per cent. more on special items of non-productive work, surely it must result in inflation?

Mr. Maudling: We have to take all claims on the national economy together, and I think we can safely accommodate this increase without inflationary pressure.

Motor Cars (Tax Reduction)

Mr. Holt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study he made, before taking his decision to cut

Purchase Tax on cars by 20 per cent., of the likely effect of this on the annual deficit of British Railways.

Mr. Maudling: Before reaching my decision, I took into account all relevant factors.

Mr. Holt: Would the Chancellor say, then, what in fact was the result of his consideration, vis-à-vis the railways, because surely the task which the Government has set Dr. Beeching is difficult enough as it is and this decision will make it even more difficult?

Mr. Maudling: After my consideration, I came to the conclusion that the possible effect on the railways should not deter me from doing the right thing in the case of motor cars.

Treasury Staff (Day Release Classes)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of his Department's responsibilities for training in the Civil Service, why fewer than half the juveniles in the Treasury are attending day release classes.

Mr. Barber: Every encouragement is given to Treasury staff under age 18 to attend day release classes. Attendance is, of course, largely voluntary, but we are constantly seeking to increase it.

Mr. Boyden: Cannot the hon. Gentleman do better? Should we not expect the right hon. Gentleman's Department to set a better example to other Departments and to stimulate day release classes? How is it that some Departments can manage 80 per cent. to 100 per cent. day releases while the Service Departments are below two-thirds?

Mr. Barber: There are special reasons for the figures within the Treasury. It is because the type of officer we employ there is somewhat different from those in other Departments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything we can to increase the proportion of those who do attend day release classes and that our objective is the same as his.

Mrs. Slater: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how the people employed in his


Department differ from those in other Departments? Can he also tell us whether he is satisfied that it is his duty not only to release those who voluntarily go to these classes but to shove and to push people into wanting to go and making it much easier for them to take advantage of the classes?

Mr. Barber: The position is that in most other Departments there is a large proportion of what I might call "junior executive officers". In the Treasury we have a very high proportion in the age groups to which the hon. Gentleman refers of typists and other people who, although they do not attend day release classes, do attend evening classes. Therefore, there is an explanation for the difference in the figures between the Treasury and other Departments.

Central Scotland

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a survey of what products, needed by the developing countries of the world, can be manufactured by under-utilised resources in central Scotland.

Mr. Maudling: In considering loan applications from developing countries it is certainly my intention that we should take into account, among other considerations, the extent to which the loan could be spent on products for which spare capacity exists in the economy, whether in central Scotland or elsewhere. But I do not consider that any special surveys are necessary for this purpose.

Mr. Dalyell: When considering this problem, will the right hon. Gentleman pay special attention to the needs of the papermaking industry in relation to the request of the Delhi Report for paper for educational purposes in the developing countries?

Mr. Maudling: I will certainly look at any suggestion such as that.

Footwear (Tax)

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange to make any changes in the rates of Purchase Tax on footwear in February or August, instead of April, in accordance with the proposals of

which details have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Poole.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. I could not undertake an obligation to do this.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Will my right hon. Friend view the problem with more sympathy if I send him more evidence?

Mr. Maudling: I will certainly try to do so, but to preclude myself from action in the Budget on Purchase Tax would be very difficult.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he ought to have any Purchase Tax at all on boots and shoes when he has reduced Purchase Tax on motor cars?

Mr. Maudling: I shall naturally consider all aspects of Purchase Tax between now and the Budget.

Universities (Staff-Student Ratio)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance he plans to give the University Grants Committee so that the recent deterioration in the university staff-student ratio in the pure and applied sciences may he checked, and a ratio more comparable with pre-1939 standards attained.

Mr. Barber: The Government have undertaken to review the level of grant in 1964. They will then have the benefit of the Report of the Robbins Committee on Higher Education and will be in a position to assess the development of the present expansion programme the level of grants for which, as explained by my right hon. Friend the former Chief Secretary, has been assessed primarily with the aim of increasing student numbers.

Mr. Boyden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the University Grants Cornmittee says that staffing compared with 1938–39 is 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. under what it ought to be? How does he expect to be able to reach the target he has set himself without diluting the quality of teaching if he does not get the staff required for this purpose?

Mr. Barber: I do not think one can pass judgment on this mattes by a comparison with what happened in 1939, as the hon. Gentleman did in his Question and in his supplementary question.


After all, since then there have been great changes, for example, in the number of students, the methods of teaching and in graduate and post-graduate work research, all of which is bound to affect the student-teacher relationship.

Mr. Boyden: If the hon. Gentleman does not like the period 1938–39, will he accept the period 1955–56, where the science ratio is still declining?

Mr. Barber: Obviously this is a matter which is highly relevant, and we bear it in mind. But I would remind the hon. Gentleman that expansion plans already announced involve an increase in public expenditure on universities from £116 million in 1961–62 to something over £160 million in 1966–67.

Decimal Coinage System

Mr. Gower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the present Common Market negotiations, he will make an early decision about the proposed change to a decimal system of currency.

Mr. Barber: I think we should await the report of the Halsbury Committee.

Mr. Gower: Is not it regrettable that this decision has been delayed for so long? Is it impossible for the Committee to give some interim advice to enable my right hon. Friend to come to an earlier decision?

Mr. Barber: We hope that the Committee will be in a position to report early next year.

Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)

Mr. D. Griffiths: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will authorise a reduction in the rate of interest charged by the Public Works Loan Board to local authorities who wish to borrow money.

Mr. Barber: These rates are determined by the rates at which local authorities can borrow in the market.

Mr. Griffiths: That is just the reply which I anticipated I should receive. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this is a severe injustice to local authorities who have to cater for the community

as a whole? All the essential services are operated on a non-profit basis, but they have to pay the same rate of interest as commercial undertakings? Does not he appreciate that such a grave injustice has never been more unwarranted and that it is time the position was altered?

Mr. Barber: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the question of local authority borrowing is at present being reviewed. I would only remind him that the present rates on borrowings from the Public Works Loan Board came into force in October and that the rates have been reduced five times since the beginning of April of this year.

Mr. Jay: Does the Government wish to see an increase or a decrease in council house building?

Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government dealt with this point only a short time ago and said that he did not expect any difficulty in reaching his target on this account.

Mr. Manuel: Would the hon. Gentleman consider giving local authorities freedom to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board? Is he aware that local authorities are allowed to go to to the Board only if they cannot obtain money in the private market?

Mr. Barber: On many occasions at this Box I have explained what, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman knows only too well—the present policy of the Government. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the current review of local authority borrowing which is now taking place.

Sir C. Osborne: Is there any hope of getting the Bank Rate down by 1 per cent. in the near future and so helping all these problems?

Mr. Barber: I hardly think that my hon. Friend would expect me to answer that.

Textile Industry

Mrs. Castle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the telegram addressed to him by Mr. Kenneth Shorrock, secretary of the Textile Action Group, calling for similar assistance to be given to the textile


industry as he has recently given to the motor car industry be reducing Purchase Tax.

Mr. Maudling: I have told Mr. Shorrock that have noted his representations and will bear them in mind.

Mrs. Castle: While thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that the motor car industry, to whose help he has just sprung so generously, has always enjoyed a high degree of protection, Whereas the cotton industry has been exposed to the most severe competition? On the basis of the principle he himself outlined for his action in respect of the motor industry, namely,
to give stimulus where it is most needed with a particular eye on investment and exports".
would he not agree that the textile industry qualifies outstandingly under that head for urgent action without having to wait for the next Budget?

Mr. Maudling: I think the circumstances are quite different. Many textile piece goods and household textile goods are not charged to tax anyway. The tax on clothing is 10 per cent, and clothing sales are going up steadily.

Mr. Hale: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that in towns like Oldham, where mill after mill has been closed in the last few weeks, there are no alternative buildings available even if alternative industry were available? There is nothing we can do because of the physical restriction imposed on the firms and we have nowhere to accommodate the industry. The situation is growing grave and serious, and it is not enough to say that people can travel 20 miles across the Pennines or 40 miles across Lancashire where they may be able to obtain suitable employment. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this again and not give the reply he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), which in its expression sounded a little callous, or at least casual?

Mr. Maudling: I have said, and I repeat, that I intend to review the whole Purchase Tax structure in connection with the forthcoming Budget. It would be unwise for me to say more.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the Chancellor aware that the rate of unemployment in Colne now is about 9·7 per cent. and the rate of unemployment in Nelson is scarcely less? Is he aware that those two towns depend almost entirely on the cotton industry for their living, which they are not now making, and that the people unemployed are in middle age and are not now able to learn new skills, quite apart from moving long distances elsewhere? Will he not treat this matter so lightly as he and all his colleagues in the Government have done for many years?

Mr. Maudling: I am not treating it lightly at all, but I doubt whether the circumstances the hon. Member has referred to have any connection with Purchase Tax on clothing.

Mr. Silverman: Of course they do.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Aberdeen (Advance Factories)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet completed his consideration of the need for building advance factories in Aberdeen; and how many such factories he now plans to build, and for which industries.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): My right hon. Friend has no plans for building advance factories in Aberdeen.

Mr. Hughes: Is that not a terrible confession of failure? Does the hon. Gentleman know that this morning I received a letter showing that he is as bigoted and prejudiced as ever against the city of Aberdeen, notwithstanding representations made to various Ministers of the Crown when they visited Aberdeen, representations made by Aberdeen Trades Council and other representative bodies there? Will he get rid of that bigotry and prejudice against Aberdeen and supply us with advance factories which we need?

Mr. Price: I can assure the hon. and learned Member that my right hon. Friend has no bigotry towards the city of Aberdeen, but in his view there are other parts of Scotland in which the need is greater.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Is my hon. Friend aware that a need as great as an advance factory in Aberdeen is to encourage existing industry to obtain a larger share of sub-contracting work from the industrial belt? Could he therefore say what his Department is doing to encourage this?

Mr. Price: I can assure my hon. Friend that financial assistance under the Act is always available to firms in Aberdeen of whatever nature they are.

Exports (Sweden)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the economic benefit to Great Britain, and in particular to Scotland, resulting from the British Exhibition and Trade Fair held in Stockholm from 18th May to 3rd June. 1962.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Alan Green): United Kingdom exports to Sweden during the third quarter of 1962 were 11 per cent. higher than in the corresponding quarter of last year. Separate figures for Scotland are not available. The British Trade Fair was no doubt one of many factors which contributed to this result.

Mr. Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman give an instance of how many orders resulted from that festival or fair? Was all that money misspent by the Government? Has anything resulted for the benefit of Scotland? If it has, what steps is he taking, in conjunction with the Minister of Transport, to provide a means of fulfilling any orders which have emanated from it?

Mr. Green: I am not quite sure how many questions there were in that supplementary question. As the hon. and learned Member knows quite well, and as all hon. Members know, one cannot attribute specifically to a trade fair all the consequent increases in the subsequent year of exports which may be obtained for this country. It would be silly to try to attribute to one single activity an increase of the size I have given. British industry has indeed gone out and got the work in Sweden, and it has been supported in getting that work by this trade fair. I do not think it would be helpful to say more.

Japanese Fishing Reels

Mr. Dance: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to prevent fishing reels entering this country from Japan free of control; and if he will ensure that in future such imports are covered by the same licensing arrangements as apply in the case of all other items of fishing tackle and sports equipment.

Mr. Green: No, Sir.

Mr. Dance: Is my hon. Friend aware that, owing to a blunder in his Department four years ago, fishing reels are coming to this country under the guise of cotton reels? Is he also aware that there is a certain amount of slack trading in the fishing reel industry, which is largely situated in Redditch in my constituency? In view of this, will not he reconsider the matter and see that the ridiculous situation whereby fishing reels come into the country under the guise of cotton reels and cotton bobbins is done away with?

Mr. Green: I think my hon. Friend is aware that fishing reels imported from Japan have been free of restrictions for as long ago as 1957—[Laughter.] Perhaps I may be permitted to continue. They come in under a definition covering reels and spools of all kinds. That was done in 1957, and we have since heard from one or two fishing reel manufacturers protests about these imports, but the trade association concerned has not produced any evidence in support of them, although it has been given the opportunity to do so. I am, of course, perfectly ready to consider any further practical considerations which may be made.

Mr. Dance: Will my hon. Friend consider the matter again if I send him evidence from the industry concerned?

Mr. Green: I have already said that I will look at any fresh evidence which may be produced.

Mr. Mitchison: Is it not a pretty silly definition anyhow? Would it not be better if the hon. Gentleman put some sense into it?

Mr. Green: It is an international definition.

Solicitation of Money

Mr. P. Browne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation during this session to amend the Companies Act, 1948, so as to control solicitation of money from the public.

Mr. D. Price: Legislation will be introduced as soon as the parliamentary programme permits.

Mr. Browne: In view of the fact that my hon. Friend was sponsor to a Bill which I introduced in March, 1960, when the Economic Secretary told me that he hoped that legislation would be introduced during the next Session because the matter was urgent, would he please tell me what as soon "as possible" means?

Mr. Price: My hon. Friend is old enough in the House to put his own interpretation on it. I can assure him that the delay is not due to the difficulty of framing legislation but to the difficulty of finding Parliamentary time.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Does the Minister appreciate that the Bill to which he originally gave his support may now be reintroduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) and myself in the form of private legislation and that our intentions in the matter will be very much affected by how soon "as soon as possible" is?

Mr. Price: I shall communicate my hon. Friends anxiety to the Leader of the House.

Swindon

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what special instructions he has given his officials in the Swindon area; and what special steps he will take to assist men who will become redundant at the British Railways workshops by guiding new industries to Swindon which are able to use the skill and experience of these men, and the plant and premises which will no longer be used by British Railways.

Mr. D. Price: No special action is needed to guide new industry to Swindon where, even allowing for the proposed railway workshops redundancy, the employment prospects are good. The Board of Trade will naturally have regard to the effects of this redundancy

when considering applications for industrial development certificates in Swindon.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to take this complacent attitude, but is he not aware that there is a very grave problem facing some hundreds of men, particularly older craftsmen who are to he sacked next year and the year after that from the railway workshops? Is he aware that the alternative employment outlook is not so hot at the moment? Will he not look again at the whole question and consider going down there himself, or asking his right hon. Friend to do so, in order to look at the situation on the spot?

Mr. Price: I can assure the hon. Member that we shall look sympathetically at applications for development, but—I must add the proviso—only applications which cannot go to development districts. We cannot undertake to guide new industry to the area while the needs of the development districts are so pressing.

Mr. Manuel: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise the real problem in these areas where railway workshops and other similar workshops are closing down completely and many of the older men are not equipped to take other jobs? Has he any plans for rehabilitation units in those areas to which the Government can recommend these men to go in order that they may take up suitable work in the area?

Mr. Price: The hon. Member knows that in my constituency capacity I am extremely well aware of this problem. He also knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in one or two instances is proposing to set up retraining units to do just what the hon. Member has been asking.

Mr. Manuel: In Swindon?

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, may I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Travel Agents (Registration)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to provide for the compulsory registration of travel agents.

Mr. Green: My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that such legislation is necessary.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Has my hon. Friend and his Department made any estimate of the loss occasioned to members of the public by the absence of such protection?

Mr. Green: As in all walks of life, there are one or two black sheep in this profession, but I am not satisfied that the conduct of travel agents in general is wrong. Where there are very rare exceptions, the number is very small in relation to the total number involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-MINISTERS AND CIVIL SERVANTS (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Paget: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is concern that the holder of a high judicial office upon resignation or retirement may be offered paid employment in industry; and if he will consider introducing legislation prohibiting such transfers.

Mr. Mason: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that there is concern that highly placed civil servants upon retirement, and Ministers of the Crown following resignation, are quickly offered executive positions in industry and commerce; and if he will consider introducing legislation prohibiting these immediate transfers during a specified period.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek power to apply to ex-Ministers, who become directors of commercial undertakings with which their former Departments had business dealings, regulations similar to those governing senior civil servants taking comparable directorships on their retirement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I do not think that such legislation would be wise or necessary.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that judicial pensions proportionate to Service men's pay are vastly higher than those of any other branch of the public service, and, in particular, that the Lord Chancellor, unlike any other Cabinet Minister, receives a pension of £5,000 a year pre-

cisely so that judges need not hang around their necks a "For Hire" label? Does he consider it desirable for industry to be in a position to run its eye down the High Court Bench and decide whom it will buy? Does he think that justice appears to be done when judges might have appearing before them a potential employer who is in a position to quadruple their screw? Is not this a serious matter?

The Prime Minister: There are two points. First, I think that it is desirable and beneficial to the country that men of considerable experience should be available, when they leave the Government, to the service of industry and commerce. Secondly, I understand that Lord Kilmuir, like other Lord Chancellors, does not draw his pension while he is not fulfilling a judicial function.

Mr. Mason: Is the Prime Minister not aware that there has been widespread concern over a long period about this quick switch from Minister of the Crown to executive member, director or adviser of big business?

Mr. Ross: Jobs for the boys.

Mr. Mason: This is especially so if the Ministers happen to have been in negotiations previously with the firm which they are joining. Is the Prime Minister not aware that Cabinet Ministers, with their intimate knowledge of forward Government thinking and their personal contacts in high places in the Civil Service and in the Government, are in big demand? Would he not therefore consider, even if he avoids legislation, whether there should be some introduction of either a higher code of conduct or a period of restraint so that this quick switch from Minister of the Crown to big business does not seem so unseemly and so connected with the previous office?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Dealing with the specific point, I know of no case in which the ex-Ministers concerned have been concerned with contracts or negotiations with the firms in question. As for the wider issue, I think that the hon. Member, like so many of his hon. Friends, is living rather in the past. He seems to expect that in future nobody will be able to enter public life unless he has a large private income.

Mr. Lipton: Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that there has been some marked falling off recently in standards of conduct? Does he recall that when this House was considering in 1959 the Lord Chancellor's pension, Sir Jocelyn Simon, then Solicitor-General, said that it was not altogether in accordance with custom for an ex-Lord Chancellor to take an outside post?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know from what the hon. Member is quoting, but verbatim quotation in Questions is not allowed unless it is an exceptional case.

Mr. Lipton: It was not a verbatim quotation, Mr. Speaker, but the sense of what the Solicitor-General told the House on that occasion. In the light of these circumstances, is it not more and more crudely obvious that the Tory Party and big business are just one and the same thing?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that considerations relevant to what should be the pension of a Minister apply when the Minister in question does not draw the pension.

Sir R. Nugent: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been many men from industry and commerce who have given valuable service in the House, on both sides of it and on both Front Benches and back benches, and that to place any restrictions on movement from industry and commerce or back again would be against the best interests of the country?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I find myself in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Prime Minister recall exactly what Sir Jocelyn Simon, when Solicitor-General, said on this subject when he was introducing the Judicial Pensions Bill? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Jocelyn Simon said that there was a moral obligation upon an ex-Lord Chancellor to continue to preside over the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the House of Lords Law Lords? How can an ex-Lord Chancellor do this if he occupies a full-time post in industry? Can the Prime Minister give us any example of a former Lord Chancellor taking a post in industry, ex-

cept that of Lord Birkenhead, and would he not agree that this was bitterly criticised at the time? The Prime Minister has accused us of being in the past, but is he aware that, with the exception of Lord Birkenhead, the conduct of ex-Ministers in the past was very much better than it is today?

The Prime Minister: Ex-Lord Chancellors in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries no doubt accumulated in those periods of small taxation and high fees during their period of service very large capital resources. All that has changed. I think that it is not only fair but generally beneficial that there should be this interchange between industry and commerce in this way.

Mr. Gaitskell: How can the Prime Minister defend the Judicial Pensions Bill, which specifically increased the pension of the Lord Chancellor in order to prevent this kind of thing happening? Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying to us that all that is nonsense, that all that is in the past, and that in future Lord Chancellors can take any job they like?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am saying that the justification for the pension was that, if the Lord Chancellor was sitting as a judge—as a Law Lord or in other ways—although he was not obliged to do so, but so long as he had his health and strength, if he drew the pension and did nothing else, he was expected to sit as a Law Lord. In this case my noble Friend Lord Kilmuir, who is being attacked now—though why I do not understand—does not draw the pension.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the Prime Minister apply what he has just been saying about the Lord Chancellor to High Court judges, because I cannot see any difference between the two?

The Prime Minister: Judges of the High Court are generally men who have spent their whole life in the legal profession. They are similar to civil servants, working their way up through the legal profession to judges. It is their life. The Lord Chancellor—whether it is a good or a bad thing, it is part of our Constitution—is a political figure. He is in or out of office, according to the chances. I think that what Lord Kilmuir


has done is perfectly proper. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to start another hare, we are prepared to run that too.

Mr. Mason: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Warbey—Question No. 2.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. Where a number of Questions are being answered together, does a notice of this sort prevent further supplementaries on the other Questions?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think it does, because they are all on one topic. It does not arise, anyhow, because I have called the next Question.

Mr. Paget: With great respect, surely the Question as to Ministers and the Question as to judges raise fundamentally different issues? I respectfully ask you if I may put a further point to make that distinction.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am sorry. I appreciate the distinction, but I also must have regard to the fact that we have a number of Questions to aim at to the Prime Minister. That is why I called the next Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBA

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he had with President Kennedy between 25th and 28th October on the use of United States or British nuclear weapons in the event of war breaking out over the Cuban missile bases.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 6th November.

Mr. Warbey: That was no answer at all. Has the Prime Minister since had an opportunity to see what the Foreign Secretary said in the House of Lords on 1st November? The Foreign Secretary then said that during the previous ten days the world had been faced with the prospect of a nuclear war In those circumstances, is the Prime Minister now saying that he abdicated his responsibility to the British people and allowed them to meet their possible fate of

nuclear annihilation without any possibility of their voice being heard in the dispute about which they were to suffer and die?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to what I said then, he will see that I said precisely the opposite.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY, BATHGATE (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent official visit to the British Motor Corporation factory in Bathgate.

The Prime Minister: When I was in Edinburgh last month I took the opportunity of visiting the British Motor Corporation factory in Bathgate as an example of the Government's factory building programme under the Local Employment Act. I was encouraged by the progress that is being made in this contribution to the economy in Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: In the light of the fact that the Prime Minister was told of the 6·3 unemployment rate in the Bathgate area and in the light of the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look favourably on that form of aid to developing countries which comes from under-utilised resources in Britain, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary for Technical Co-operation and the President of the Board of Trade to determine what forms of aid can be produced in the northeast of England, in Northern Ireland and in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: The question is about one particular factory. I said that it is an example of one of the successful operations under the Act. What we want is an extension of that, and I hope that that will come.

Mr. Jay: Is the Prime Minister aware that his Answer will sound remarkably complacent in Scotland where there is very great anxiety about rising unemployment at present?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I answered the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Ross: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that the success of this factory, of which we are glad, should be matched against the fact that the area has again to be rescheduled as requiring help?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but this shows that this form of development together with the other ancillary factories which I hope will build themselves round the motor trade now established in Scotland is just the kind of thing we want.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received for the holding of a national referendum before Her Majesty's Government ratifies the Treaty of Rome; and what replies he has made.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received regarding the holding of a General Election or a referendum on Britain's entry into the European Economic Community; and what replies he has sent.

The Prime Minister: When the question has been raised in this House I have given replies similar to that which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) on 13th November.

Mr. Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are those who do not follow the Sandwich line but who believe that the nation should be consulted before this country ratifies the Treaty of Rome? Will he therefore consider holding a national referendum on the Common Market issue within a reasonable time of the initialling of the heads of agreement, should this take place?

The Prime Minister: I think that the procedure is as we have laid it down all along. The first thing is to go on with the negotiations and, if possible, bring them to a conclusion. When that is done, it will be the duty of the Government to recommend to the House what course we should pursue. I do not think it would be wise to go beyond that at this stage.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that his evasive answers do not

lend any credit to democracy and will give the impression that the Prime Minister has no real confidence in the public support for the policies which he is now pursuing in direct defiance to the mandate he obtained at the last election?

The Prime Minister: All I was saying was that we had better take things as they come along.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. Friend in his further consideration of this matter bear in mind that accession to the Treaty of Rome raises issues of unique importance and that many people who would normally be opposed to the introduction of referenda into our Constitution nevertheless feel that on this exceptional occasion there should be some way of consulting the public by a method other than a General Election in which no clear decision could be reached?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I realise all these problems, but I do not think that the time has yet come to consider them.

Mr. J. Hynd: Since the views of the people of this country should be heard on this question before a final decision is taken and since this honourable House is supposed to represent the people of the country, would not the Prime Minister consider at least the desirability of giving a free vote on the occasion so that Members of Parliament will take their full responsibility in voting on behalf of their constituents?

The Prime Minister: I will, of course, take note of that, but I think all I have said is still true, that we ought to go on with the negotiations, bring them to an end, see what the Government themselves make up their mind to recommend and then, as the hon. Gentleman says, let the House judge.

INDIA

Mr. Gaitskell: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government is taking to protect the lives and property of British subjects threatened by the Chinese advance in Assam.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): It has been agreed with the


Government of India that, in view of the further Chinese advances in the North-East Frontier Agency of India, the wives and children of British residents north of the Brahmaputra River, in Assam, should be moved at once to safer areas.
The Indian Government have undertaken to provide transport and we have just learned from our High Commissioner's Office in Calcutta that the first planeload of evacuated British residents has arrived there in good order.
This partial evacuation represents the first phase of a plan which has been arranged between the Indian and British Governments in consultation with the British community to meet an emergency of this kind which has now arisen.
The British Deputy High Commissioner has gone to Assam, where he is maintaining the closest touch with the Indian authorities.
As an additional precautionary measure, Royal Air Force transport aircraft are being sent from Singapore to India to be available if needed.
Further appropriate measures will be taken as and when required.

Mr. Gaitskell: While the House will, I am sure, be reassured by the statement of the Prime Minister about the safety of British subjects in Assam, is it not now clear that the Chinese advance into India is not a mere border conflict, but carries with it the very gravest possibilities?
Will the Prime Minister tell the House what Her Majesty's Government are doing in these circumstances, whether they have been asked by the Indian Government, for instance, to supply aircraft, whether consultations have taken place with the United States of America and whether the right hon. Gentleman would not consider, in view of this critical situation, sending a mission to India; either a mission headed by a senior member of the Government or, possibly, a military mission—whichever the Indian Government think most appropriate—so that we can all be assured that everything possible is being done to help India in this situation?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, appreciate that there is a certain delicacy in stating

any details of our discussions and plans. We are in continuous consultation with the Government of India and we are in the closest consultation with other members of the Commonwealth and with the United States Government. I do not think that there is anything I can add today which would be helpful, but I recognise the potential dangers and, of course, the wide anxiety and sympathy for India which is felt in this country and throughout the Commonwealth. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press me further, for these matters are under urgent consideration and I think that it would not be wise for me to go into further details.

Mr. Wyatt: Would the Prime Minister consider having this question raised at the Security Council of the United Nations in view of the obvious threat to world peace, and bearing in mind that India's reluctance to take the matter up with the United Nations is due to her fear of compromising her policy of non-alignment by annoying the Russians? This argument does not apply to this country or to some other country.
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is not the slightest chance of the Indian forces, which are ill-equipped and small in number, being able to drive the Chinese out by themselves and without the help of United Nations troops?

The Prime Minister: That, also, raises rather delicate questions in our relations with the Government of India and I would prefer to leave it unanswered at the moment. Our first duty is to try to bring what help we can with our friends in the Commonwealth and with the United States. We also have a duty, and a hope, that these grave events may have a unifying effect throughout the sub-continent and that, perhaps, some good might come out of this evil, if that can be used wisely and delicately in the directions which, I think, the whole House wants.

Mr. Gaitskell: While appreciating the difficulties of the Prime Minister in saying very much at this stage, would he not agree that events are, unfortunately, moving very fast at the moment? Would he, therefore, give serious attention to the suggestion I made, that a mission might be sent by Her Majesty's Government to India at this point?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir We have thought of all these matters, but we must arrange them with our friends in India.

Mr. Nabarro: Following the report this morning that 80 aircraft of the Royal Air Force Reserve were to be sent to India and the fact that India is receiving Russian MIG aircraft at the same time, would it not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to consult Mr. Khrushchev as to whether nuclear arms are to be included in the aid to India, either from Russia or this country, or whether any aid we give is to be restricted to only conventional weapons?

The Prime Minister: I think that the questions which have been asked and the whole mood of the House would be to recognise the gravity of the position and not to try to exaggerate or minimise it and, certainly, not to embark upon lines of approach which might do more harm than good. We have a very confused situation, as I say, and I am not without hope that we can use it to good advantage. But I would like to assure the House that we have not underrated this and that we realise the very difficult military situation which might develop.

Miss Lee: While not wanting to press the Prime Minister, and accepting that this is a difficult diplomatic situation, can we assume that he is keeping in mind one possible line of thought in this tragic situation, namely, that Soviet Russia, in present circumstances, has a common interest with India and this country in trying to see that the Chinese do not benefit by one inch from their aggression? Can we also assume that nothing will be left undone to try to bring common pressure on the Chinese from India, Pakistan, Britain and Canada and, also, from the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister: All these matters are, of course, very much in our mind. What we want to do is to produce the result, which is that an aggressive policy should once again be shown to be a failure and not to produce benefits to those who adopt it. That has been the policy of this country as a whole for many years. We have suffered a great deal in trying to enforce it, but we must not shrink from it again.

Mr. A. Henderson: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind Article 35 of the

United Nations Charter, which provides that any threat to world peace and security shall be brought to the attention not only of the Security Council, but of the General Assembly? Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the present situation justifies the United Nations facing up to its responsibilities?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but I think that the Prime Minister of India must have the main decision as to any approach to the United Nations and would very much resent a kind of butting in by us unless it was by arrangement.

SEAHAM HARBOUR LIFEBOAT (LOSS)

Mr. Blyton: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement about the disaster to the lifeboat at Seaham Harbour on 17th November.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): The Seaham Harbour lifeboat was launched with a crew of five at about 4.10 p.m. on 17th November to search for the fishing coble "Economy" which had been reported to Seaham coastguard as overdue. At about 4.55 p.m. the lifeboat reported, by radiotelephone, that she had found the missing coble, had taken off the five occupants, and was returning to harbour.
At about 5.15 p.m., the lifeboat capsized when 20 yards outside the entrance to Seaham Harbour, and was later washed inshore in a damaged condition. At the time a north-easterly gale—force 8 to 10—was blowing and there was a heavy confused sea and swell. It was overcast and there were sleet showers. The coastguard called the flank lifeboats from Hartlepool and Sunderland to search for survivors. Beach searches were also organised and aircraft assistance obtained to drop flares. One man from the fishing cable was washed up alive on the beach and is now in hospital. Seven bodies have so far been recovered and two are still missing. The search for these continues.
The Royal National Lifeboat Institution has begun an inquiry into the cause of this tragic accident and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the House will wish


me to express its deepest sympathy with the families of all the brave men who lost their lives.

Mr. Blyton: I should like to thank the Minister for his statement and to endorse the sympathy which he has extended to the families of those who have lost their lives in this disaster. Would the right hon. Gentleman use his offices to do everything he can to see that the needs of the dependants are met and that help is given to them as soon as possible?

Mr. Marples: Certainly, Sir, and I am glad to say that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution has already said and agreed that they will be paid pensions by the Insitution on the scale applicable to chief petty officers in the Royal Navy. I understand that the Institution has already sent a substantial cheque to start these pensions going. I am sure that the whole House will be very grateful to the Institution for such prompt action.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Whilst wishing to associate myself with the feeling of bereavement for all those who have lost their lives in this tragic case, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that by Sunday morning the Royal National Lifeboat Institution sent out a team of officials, led by the Deputy Chief Inspector, to carry out an immediate inquiry into what had caused this tragic accident?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the Institution has already sent a sum of £500 to the dependants and that the pensions which, as he has said, will be paid to dependants on the scale of chief petty officer in the Royal Navy, will be paid irrespective of any other State benefit or any other pensions applicable to these unfortunate people?

Mr. Marples: I am sure that the whole House will agree that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution acted very speedily and very efficiently and, I think, in the circumstances, extremely generously.

Mr. Shinwell: May I, as a former Member for the area, associate myself with the expressions of sympathy?

Dr. Bennett: In the light of these and other such disasters in recent years, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider that it might be worth

while instituting an inquiry into the question whether it would not be better to have self-righting lifeboats, as this one was not?

Mr. Marples: Before taking any further action in this case, we had better await the outcome of inquiries which are being made by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY)

Mr. Wigg: May I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order in relation to two Questions, which I sought to place on the Order Paper, in connection with the Ministerial responsibility for security, and evidence before the Tribunal?
As I understand, the first Question, which sought to ascertain from the Prime Minister whether he would offer to give evidence before the Tribunal, has been accepted as being in order. I understand that the second Question, which it would be out of order for me to read but which sought to obtain information from the Government of the evidence which they would offer, has been ruled by you as being out of order. I understand that your decision is based upon a statement made by Mr. Speaker Lowther on 21st March, 1921, in col. 2268 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, in which he ruled that as the matter before a Tribunal had been referred to that Tribunal it should not be raised and discussed in the House.
May I submit for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker Lowther was on the Second Reading of the Ministries (Cessation) Bill, and the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Bill, which was the authority for setting up the Tribunal, did not receive the Royal Assent and become law until three days later, on 24th March. In those circumstances, Mr. Speaker Lowther, speaking in the past tense, used the word "undesirable" when he was seeking to give guidance and in those circumstances your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the second Question is not applicable. Would you be good enough, therefore, to reconsider it?
Surely it is a matter of the utmost importance to the House that Ministerial responsibility in connection with this


matter should be established as being a matter proper on which the House can question the Executive to ensure, first, that the Prime Minister appears before the Tribunal to give evidence and, secondly, that the House should know what evidence he will offer on behalf of the Government covering their responsibility in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am greatly obliged to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for enabling us to reach a position where I can rule, because I think that it is for the general convenience. I say nothing about the Question which I have allowed.
The reason why I disallowed the hon. Member's second Question was because I thought that it related to a matter referred to the Tribunal. My Ruling is—and I make it as a considered declaration of principle—that when the House has resolved that it is expedient to set up a Tribunal under the 1921 Act to inquire into a matter, and a Tribunal has been set up, it is not in accordance with the practice of the House to allow Questions to Ministers upon the matter of the inquiry.
I base myself on the Ruling of my predecessor, Mr. Speaker Lowther, to which the hon. Member for Dudley has referred. If hon. Members want to look at it, it is in Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 139, col. 2268. The hon. Member is quite right in saying that at that time the Bill, which ultimately became the 1921 Act, was not already law. The position was that the Bill was brought into existence to help the House to inquire into allegations which had been made by an hon. and gallant Gentleman and the House resolved to refer that specific matter to a Tribunal before the Bill was law, in anticipation of the Bill becoming law.
Following the words of the Bill, the House will recall that the Statute reads now by reference to a Resolution
… whether passed before or after the commencement of this Act …
In these circumstances, I do not regard the fact that Mr. Speaker Lowther was ruling before the Bill became law as in any way reducing the cogency of my predecessor's Ruling binding upon myself now.

Mr. Wigg: May I ask the Leader of the House whether the Ruling which you

now give, Mr. Speaker, and the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker Lowther, will be matters which will be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I think that the Leader of the House said that the other day, but before the hon. Member asks him, may I indicate that I would not be disposed to argue on this Ruling of mine now because it is a considered one, on the best advice I can get and think about.
On the matter to be referred to the Select Committee, I would make it my business to see that there was made available to the Committee, in such form as it would like, every single matter that I have considered in this context.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): In accordance with the undertaking I gave last week, I am putting the appropriate Motion on the Order Paper today, Mr. Speaker, and would invite the House to take it tomorrow. A full note is being prepared which will be available to members of the Select Committee on Procedure and it will include, in particular, the Ruling of Mr. Speaker Lowther, to which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred.

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman rose——

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member rising to a point of order, or does he want to ask a question of the Leader of the House?

Mr. Silverman: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
As this is the first definitive Ruling on the subject that has been given in the House since the actual enactment of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, may I ask for a little further clarification on one point of your Ruling? It is quite clear that if the House had referred this matter to a Select Committee of the House, obviously we could not have raised questions about it. Equally, if the matter had been referred to one of the normal courts of justice outside it would still have been protected from discussion in this House under the sub judice rule.
But does not a Tribunal under this Act occupy a somewhat middle and anomalous position? It is not a Select


Committee of the House of Commons—or a Committee at all of the House of Commons—and it is, confessedly, not a court of law. How, then, can it be subject to the principle we have always applied to those two kinds of institution, but to no others?

Mr. Speaker: I think that it was because I realised that it was distinct from a Select Committee, and wholly distinct from a court of law, that I was greatly assisted in my labours in finding that my predecessor, Mr. Speaker Lowther, had ruled expressly upon this type of Tribunal. I think that it would not be any discourtesy to the hon. Member, or to the House, if, in this peculiar circumstance, I did not elaborate my reasons here and now.

Mr. M. Foot: May we take it from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the two questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), that whereas matters referred to the Tribunal are debarred, questions about who is to appear before the Tribunal are permissible?

Mr. Speaker: I should like to look at each Question, because there may be peripheral matters which I shall have to consider. My Ruling at present is precisely phrased in relating only to the matter of the inquiry referred to the Tribunal.

Mr. Foot: May I ask the Leader of the House, on tomorrow's business, whether the Motion that is then to be moved by him will be fully debatable in the House?

Mr. Macleod: It is debatable, of course, but when the Government put down such a Motion we naturally hope that such debate as there is will arise after the Select Committee has done its work—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, the answer is, "Yes, the Motion is debatable".

Mr. S. Silverman: In view of what the Leader of the House has just said, will he put down the Motion he is to propose tomorrow at such time as will enable some debate to take place upon it, because there are a great many of us who believe that this is the wrong time to

refer the question to the Select Committee on Procedure?

Mr. Macleod: I will, of course, consider that suggestion.

ROYAL NAVY (ACCIDENTS)

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): I will, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, make a statement about the helicopter crash which occurred on Friday afternoon off St. David's Head.
The helicopter, belonging to H.M.S. "Hermes", was carrying three passengers, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), and an R.A.F. officer, Squadron Leader Stott, from the ship to the R.N. Air Station, Brawdy.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the hon. Member for Loughborough had been spending a period at sea in H.M.S. "Hermes" under an Admiralty scheme to enable Members of both Houses of Parliament to visit the Fleet. One mile west of South Bishop's Island, while flying at 1,000 feet, the aircraft suffered a total engine failure and came down in the sea. It came down slowly under auto-rotation, but on striking the rough water immediately rolled over, submerging the door. It sank in less than a minute.
The hon. Member and the crew of two were rescued alive and unhurt by another helicopter from H.M.S. "Hermes" after being in the water for about half an hour. Squadron Leader Stott was also picked up, unconscious, but I am sorry to say that he subsequently died. Lord Windlesham was not picked up, and I very much regret that, in spite of a prolonged search of the area, by aircraft from H.M.S. "Hermes", and from the R.N. Air Station, Brawdy, in which H.M. Ships "Duchess", "Berwick", "Scarborough" and "Lowestoft", as well as the St. David's life-boat, took part, no trace of him has been found.
On behalf of the Royal Navy I would like to express my deep sympathy to the families concerned.
A board of inquiry assembled yesterday on board H.M.S. "Hermes". We


expect to receive the report in a few days. An attempt is being made to salvage the helicopter, which is lying in 26 fathoms.
I should also like to take this opportunity to make a short statement on yesterday's accident. As the House is aware, at 5.30 yesterday morning there was an accident in one of the boiler rooms of H.M. Aircraft Carrier "Centaur", when a serious high-pressure steam leak occurred. Rescue operations by the ship's company were begun immediately, but I am sorry to say that an officer and four ratings who were on watch in the boiler room at the time received fatal injuries.
I should like to express deep sympathy to the families of those who lost their lives.
A board of inquiry is being sot up.

Mr. Donnelly: As my constituency is connected with one of the accidents, may I be allowed to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy, and ask three brief questions about the helicopter accident?
First, will it be possible for those interested to have the information available from the court of inquiry findings? Secondly, is the Civil Lord aware that my own constituents consider that the Navy, in all its departments, acted with fantastic speed and gallantry; and that it is thanks to them that we have my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) with us today?
Thirdly, in view of the special circumstances in which the House of Commons has been involved, will the Civil Lord draw my remarks to the attention of the captains commanding the units concerned, and to that of the St. David's lifeboat coxswain?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We do not publish the report itself, but I will consider making a statement. I should like to thank the hon. Member for the very generous things that he has said about the Royal Navy and the local command.

Mr. Willis: I thank the Civil Lord for his statement, and would like to be associated—as, I am sure, the whole House would like to be—with the expressions of sympathy to the families and relatives of those who have been killed.
May I ask whether the "Centaur" accident is the first of its kind in the history of these particular ships? Further, can the hon. Gentleman say anything about what appears to be the very long time it took before the boiler room could be entered?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: As far as I have been able to consult engineering experts in the Admiralty, this is the first accident of this sort for a very long time indeed.
On the second point, I think that it will come out in the court of inquiry that one of the reasons for the delay was the superheated steam which was present, and the high pressure that was built up inside the boiler room, which made it difficult for the rescue party.
I am sure that the House would like me to congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough on his calmness and resolution, and on his escape.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wade: On behalf of myself and my colleagues, I should like to express very sincere sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives. It is only a few days since I was dining with Lord Windlesham. He was full of vitality, and one would have expected him to have had many more years of active public life. It is a tragedy which we all very deeply regret.
I gather that the hoard of inquiry will be reporting to the Minister very soon. Whilst that report may not be published, I would hope that a statement will be made to the House.

Mr. J. Hynd: Can the Minister say what will be the scope of the power of the board of inquiry into the "Centaur" accident? Will it be a purely technical inquiry, or will the board also go into the general history of the ship, the standard of discipline, and the rest?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: This will be a technical inquiry into the cause of the explosion.

Mr. Manuel: Do I take it that the Board of inquiry into the "Centaur" accident will be recruited solely from the Navy, or will there be any representation of outside engineering ability? Will it deal specifically with when the


superheater elements were last reviewed, and what the steam-gauge reading was at the time of the accident?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The court of inquiry will consist of naval members. It is being set up on board, so it will obviously consist of experts in every field concerned with this inquiry.

Mr. Cronin: Referring to the helicopter accident, I should like to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy that the Civil Lord has made to the widows and relations of the late Lord Windlesham and Squadron Leader Stott. May I also thank the Civil Lord, and hon. Members on both sides, for their very kindly expressions of good wishes?
Is the Civil Lord aware that on this occasion all the naval personnel behaved in the most commendable possible way? Is he also aware that the rescue operations were most speedy and efficacious, and that an enormous amount of care was taken to continue the search until all possible hope was lost? Finally, may I say that the whole incident was consistent with the highest traditions of the Royal Navy?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should like to thank the hon. Member very much for his remarks.

BILL PRESENTED

LONDON GOVERNMENT

Bill to make provision with respect to local government and the functions of local authorities in the metropolitan area; to assimilate certain provisions of the Local Government Act 1933 to provisions for corresponding purposes contained in the London Government Act 1939; to make an adjustment of the metropolitan police district; and for connected purposes, presented by Sir Keith Joseph; supported by Mr. H. Brooke, Mr. Iain Macleod, Mr. Ernest Marples, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, and Sir Edward Boyle; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short and, I think the House will agree, an inoffensive Measure. It might even be described as simple, so far as that word can ever be applied with fairness or accuracy to any modern piece of legislation.
I know that the House will want to take the opportunity of this Second Reading debate to have a more general and wider-ranging discussion of the affairs of this industry. The House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power on 23rd July, in an Answer in the House, stated the financial target which he had agreed with the National Coal Board and that he referred briefly then to some of the problems and difficulties confronting the industry. Before I come to deal with the detailed provisions of the Bill, I should like to enlarge somewhat on what my right hon. Friend was able to say on that day.
Perhaps at this stage I might be allowed, on a personal note, as a relative newcomer to the affairs and problems of this immense industry, to say that I am not unconscious either of its traditions or of its quite extraordinary impact upon the lives and characters of those who work in it. In dealing with its problems, and particularly its economic problems, as anyone in my place is bound to do, I should not like it to be thought that I am either wholly ignorant or careless of the personal difficulties and hardships which are enevitably involved in the process of this industry reshaping itself to meet what is perhaps the greatest challenge in its history.
If I may, I should like to take this opportunity early in my speech, because it is the first chance that either my right hon. Friend or I have had, to refer to the recent Barony Colliery disaster. This was a grave and terrible occurrence. I know that I have the whole House with


me in extending to the relatives of the men who died our very sincere sympathy. The House will not, I know, expect me to give any estimate at this early stage of the extent of the damage, which is known to be serious. All I would like to say now is that it is receiving the very careful examination of the Coal Board and that both the Board and the Government are fully conscious of the most unwelcome employment problem that this disaster has posed in the locality.
The background to the review which my right hon. Friend and the Board recently carried out of the prospects of the industry was the unexpected contraction of the coal market, which began in 1957. This gave rise both to financial difficulties and to a mounting deficit. It was to meet this situation that the Government introduced last year, as a temporary measure, the 1961 Act, while the longer-term prospects of the industry were being considered.
The House will also recall that in April of last year the White Paper on the Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries made it necessary for appropriate objectives to be fixed for the coal industry. From 1945 until well on into the 1950s the main object of the industry had been a perfectly simple one—getting enough coal to meet a rising demand which it was confidently expected would continue both here and in Europe. But towards the end of 1957 things changed, and changed seriously. A moderate recession, increased fuel efficiency and the increasing use of other fuels reversed the trend of demand. A decline set in and continued for the next two years, while stocks mounted up.
It must be, I think, the primary aim of the coal industry so long as it has an excess of capacity to increase efficiency and not the volume of production. It is with that purpose in mind that the Board has recently been stepping up its investment in mechanisation and, at the same time, pruning investment in major reconstruction and new pits. This policy has led both to increasing productivity and to substantial capital savings. But despite it, there is still a substantial amount of new capacity which will conic into being in the next few years.
This is the fruit of investment which has been begun in past years, and now

that we have it, or are shortly to have it, it is clear that it must be used to the full. But it can only be so used—and this is a very serious problem for the industry—if its output is permitted to replace the output of the older and higher-cost pits.
It is, therefore, the policy of the Coal Board to close down those pits which are unable to cover their operating costs, let alone make any contribution to depreciation and other fixed charges.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Peyton: We have to face the fact that such pits damage the prospects of the industry. They occupy a place in the fuel market which could and should be filled by those able to show better results. I am aware, of course, that to the men involved, those who are working in these older pits, such a policy must often seem harsh and, indeed, incomprehensible; but I am, nevertheless, convinced that the Board is taking the only course possible if it is to achieve what is, I would have thought, its most vital objective, that of preserving for coal a substantial share of a competitive fuel market. I believe that this is the only way of safeguarding the whole future livelihood of the mining community.
During the next few years output will inevitably be further concentrated in those collieries which, either because of geological advantages or ready access to markets or better productivity, are able to make coal competitive. That means that a continuing reduction in the total labour force will be accompanied by a movement of men not only between pits but also to some extent between coalfields. The Board's record—and I know that it will be the desire of all hon. Members to be fair—in handling this tremendously difficult problem has, I think, been both encouraging and impressive.
The Board has had to face in the last five years a reduction in manpower of 160,000 as well as large-scale movements of men; yet unemployment amongst miners has been substantially below the national average. Between 1959 and 1961 no fewer than 117 pits were totally closed. That represented to the management of the Board a real challenge, and I think that it deserves credit for the way in which it has met that challenge,


for the fact that the average level of unemployment caused by these closures has, at the end of each year, been kept within very moderate limits.

Mr. E. Shinwell: This is a very interesting and, indeed, a vital point. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to give us comparable figures, saying how many men were employed in the mining industry as a whole in, for instance, 1960, and how many are employed now?

Mr. Peyton: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I think that, in the interests of strict accuracy, I should prefer to ask my right hon. Friend, who will, I am sure, be very willing to do so, to answer that question in detail when he replies to the debate.
For the future, it will be necessary, I am sure, for more men to leave their present homes if they are to stay in the industry. The House will recall the statement made by the Scottish Division of the Coal Board about the future of coal mining in Scotland. The statement showed that there are some areas where the prospects of men being found work in mining within daily travelling distance from their homes are slight. Inevitably, some men will have to leave the mining industry. This, of course, confronts the Government with a task which must be faced, the task of helping them to find jobs in other industries, training them in new skills, and, in areas where opportunities are limited, encouraging the development of new industry.
It is the hope of the Board that many of the men in these areas wild be willing to transfer to other coalfields in other parts of the country which will need to recruit labour. I know that people are exceedingly reluctant to go to new homes and to work in unfamiliar places. It is very easy to talk about these things and to write about them while, at the same time, divorcing oneself from the reality which they have in the lives of the men involved. This I accept, but, while we do not deny or ignore the human problems, I believe, nevertheless, that it is essential to recognise that the economy of the country will stifle unless men are willing to move from industries or parts of industries which are declining to those where the prospects of expansion are good.

Mr. William Warbey: The Parliamentary Secretary has accepted Government responsibility for a policy which involves miners in moving from their homes to new coalfields. He has spoken about men moving to new homes. Do the Government accept responsibility for ensuring that these men have new homes to go to when they arrive in other coalfields?

Mr. Peyton: If the hon. Gentleman had waited a moment, he would have heard me refer to that point. I recognise that it has great importance, and, let me add, it is a much easier question to pose than it is to solve.
The Board is doing all it can to ease the personal problems. As the House will know, transferred men are entitled to lodging allowances, to transfer grants, to removal expenses and to allowances towards extra rent. However, as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) has, quite rightly, said, there is the vital matter of the provision of houses. More houses are an urgent requirement in the new areas. The Board is itself expanding its own housing programme and will be spending several millions of pounds a year on housing during the next few years. Nearly 2,000 houses have either recently been completed or are now in course of construction or planned in the East Midlands Division alone.
If the Board is to be able to come anywhere near to solving the immense problem facing it in this respect, it must have the active help of local authorities. I take this opportunity of saying at once that many authorities are giving ready co-operation. For example, in Yorkshire——

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): Hear, hear.

Mr. Peyton: —my right hon. Friend, of course, is ready to applaud Yorkshire—the Doncaster Rural District Council expects to build 600 new houses by the end of 1963.
The Knottingley Urban District Council has agreed to provide 1,200. Negotiations are proceeding with various authorities for more than 2,000 houses in South Wales. I very much hope that other authorities, when similar proposals are before them, will judge them with the humanity and the urgency which are plainly demanded.
It is undeniable that the coal industry is going through an immensely difficult period of change. It is having to adapt itself to a smaller share of the fuel market and to the fact that the old certainty of selling all that could be produced has gone. Since 1956, the annual consumption of coal has fallen by about 26 million tons. Moreover, while that fall has been taking place, there has been a very marked and important change in the pattern of sales. The sale of the more valuable and expensive coals has been falling while sales of the cheaper coals have been increasing. This has only served to increase the problems of the Board.
Change is taking place also in the pits themselves. As I have already said, new pits are replacing old ones. Men are moving to other coalfields. The industry is in the throes of an intensified drive for more mechanisation. Further changes may arise from our entry, if it comes about, into the European Coal and Steel Community.
It was very much against this background of change that the Government decided—it is still their opinion—that it would be wrong to add to the already great difficulties facing the industry by licensing coal imports, at least for the time being.
The suggestion that there should be a reduction in the Board's capital liabilities has been much canvassed. It is important to remember in discussing this suggestion that there has been continuing and very heavy investment in the coal industry during recent years. This investment has produced, and is producing, assets of great value which will, I hope, prove lucrative. Capital reconstruction—I think that this point should regularly be made in the House—would not involve the extinction of a notional debt but the transfer of a very real and painful one to the taxpayer.
Nor do I think that such a palliative would in any way be an effective substitute for the vigorous efforts now being made by all concerned in the industry to make it pay its way. My right hon. Friend and the Coal Board have looked at this matter very carefully. For the moment at least, both are agreed that the kind of reconstruction asked for would, at present, be inappropriate and

not helpful. Instead, I believe that the Board's present policies to which I have referred constitute a far more hopeful way of producing a better balance between capital and earnings. The success of those policies would make it possible for the Board, so long as markets can be held and stocks kept at a reasonable level, to do rather better than pay its way.
The House will recall that my right hon. Friend, in the statement to which I have already referred, stated the financial target which he had agreed with the Coal Board, that is, for the next five years to break even after setting aside £10 million annually towards the difference between depreciation on a historic cost basis and depreciation on a replacement cost basis. This is a modest target which my right hon. Friend believes makes full allowance for the difficulties to which I have referred.

Mr. Nabarro: Just now my hon. Friend used the words "so long as stocks can be kept at a reasonable level". I do not expect him to answer this "off the cuff", but I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to answer it later. Undistributed stocks of coal have, according to the last available statistic of 3rd November, 1962, risen by 3 million tons compared with one year earlier. That is not a major rise, but we all considered last year that undistributed stocks were a bit too high. Would my right hon. Friend say, when he winds up the debate, what he considers to be a reasonable level of stocks?

Mr. Peyton: The question of what is a reasonable level of stocks always depends on what the market looks like. I referred to stock intentionally. This is one of the most difficult problems facing the Board.

Mr. Nabarro: That is why I asked about it.

Mr. Peyton: I make no bones about that. It seems that, whereas last year there was a fairly low lift from stocks, there is likely to be this year a net addition to stocks of 3 million or 4 million tons. That is inevitably a cloud on the horizon.
I think that it can fairly be said that the Board has shown both courage and imagination in facing what I do not


think anyone would deny is a very difficult situation. I pay tribute to the leadership which Lord Robens has shown—I have myself seen a little of this—and by which he has injected new heart into the industry. I think that his understanding of industrial relations has undoubtedly contributed in a notable way to the recent and welcome success enjoyed by the industry. The results in the first half of this year and an 8 per cent. improvement in productivity during the past twelve months are certainly hopeful signs. I know that the House will be glad to hear that for the week ended 10th November the record output per man shift of 32·3 cwt. was achieved.

Mr. James Griffiths: We on this side heard that, but I wonder whether the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) heard it.

Mr. Peyton: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend, though perhaps he is stronger in a vocal way, nevertheless has a very good hearing capacity as well.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend referring to my vocal capacity?

Mr. Peyton: I never like to lose the opportunity of paying a well-deserved compliment to my hon. Friend.
It is true I think that the industry is in better shape and heart, but one must always recognise the fact that the future of the industry, and of all engaged in it, depends on its ability to hold its markets and to avoid the accumulation of excessive stocks. I should have said that in any case, and not merely because of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster.
I come to the Bill itself. As I have said, it is a Measure of modest dimensions and, I think, wholly innocuous in its purpose. This time last year we faced a very much less favourable prospect. In each of the preceding four years the Board's accumulated deficit had increased and it was clear that during the current year, 1961, it would again substantially increase. It was even possible that it might increase this year. But the problem boiled down to this, that the Board's internal resources of about £63 million plainly would be insufficient to finance a deficit which by the end of the

year were likely to reach some £93 million.
The House therefore agreed to give my right hon. Friend the short-term powers contained in the 1961 Act. These made it possible for him to lend up to a total of £50 million to the Coal Board towards financing its accumulated deficit both at the end of 1961, and, if necessary, during 1962. In the situation prevailing at the end of last year my right hon. Friend exercised those powers to the extent of lending £30 million to the Board to enable it to bridge the gap between its total deficit and its internal resources.
I am very happy to say—and I am sure that I take my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster with me—that the remaining £20 million authorised under the Act are not required.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Peyton: The House will recall that the powers given to my right hon. Friend under the Act expire at the end of this year. I think that we can say that this year has seen a welcome change. It can now even be hoped that a modest profit—and I think that I should repeat those words—a modest profit will at least make it possible for the Board to repay some of its deficit borrowings under the 1961 Act.
The provisions of the Bill before the House are of a completely different character from those of the 1961 Act. As the House knows very well, Section 26 of the 1946 Act made the Minister the main source of the Board's borrowing. Under that Section the Board has gone to the Minister for its capital requirements. Section 27 was designed to give to the Board what any commercial organisation has—access to overdraft facilities. It enabled the Board to borrow temporarily from the banks, in the first instance, up to £10 million. This was later extended to £20 million by the 1951 Act.
Of course, the Board will need those overdraft facilities in future as in the past to meet any contingency, including possible temporary deficits. Hon. Members will note that I use the word "possible" and not "probable". Experience has, unhappily, shown that, for the Board as well as for other lesser


people, overdrafts are not as easily obtained as they would undoubtedly be in a better world. Two years ago the banks were unable to provide the temporary accommodation that the Board needed, and this could happen again.
The Bill therefore amends Section 27 of the 1946 Act so that, in practice, the Board will be quite certain of being able to get its overdraft—a very happy position to be in. The Bill provides that, for the purpose of meeting a temporary deficit only, the Board may apply to the Minister as well as to the banks for a temporary loan. It also enables the Treasury to guarantee temporary borrowings from the banks. It will give the Board facilities similar to those provided for the transport boards in the Transport Act, 1962. The Treasury guarantee of bank borrowings is a support already available to all nationalised industries. Until now, for some unexplained reason, the Coal Board has been the "odd man out."
These simple amendments do nothing except ensure that the purpose which Parliament originally had in mind in writing Section 27 into the 1946 Act is discharged. The purposes for which the Board may borrow temporarily remain unchanged and the limit for such borrowings remains at £20 million. So that there is no confusion between this temporary borrowing and capital borrowing, I emphasise that the Board's capital borrowing powers under Section 26 of the 1946 Act remain at a limit of £700 million.
One other thing that the Bill does is to alter the dates of the Board's financial year to run from April to March instead of from January to December. This is a purely technical but helpful change which will give several advantages. First, it brings the Board's financial year into line with the Government's fiscal year. It brings the Board's financial year into line with the financial years of other nationalised power industries. It will also bring the Board's financial year into tine with the coal year, which is intended to end with the Winter, whenever that may be.
I hope that the House will agree that the change which I have described is a reasonable one and will be willing to accept the minor but useful legislative

changes contained in the Bill. I very much hope that the House will be willing to give the Bill a Second Reading.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I do not have much to say about the Bill. It is a simple one, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and I do not think that there will be much controversy between the two sides of the House over its provisions. I do not, however, find myself able to accept many of the things said by the Parliamentary Secretary in his review of the mining industry.
There was one thing that the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech with which I should like to associate myself. He mentioned the dreadful disaster at the Barony Colliery, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), where, a fortnight ago, there was a cave-in of the shaft of the colliery, which employs about 1,600 men. Unhappily, four men lost their lives in the tragedy, the nature of which is such that, I believe, the bodies have not yet been recovered.
All of us will have within our minds the conflict of sympathy for the bereaved, a realisation of what a dreadful job this is in any event and how much better it would be if men could find a more congenial way of earning a living, at the same time feeling great sympathy with 1,200 of the 1,600 men who are now out of work, with no prospect of getting employment in the mining industry within travelling distance of their homes, with no prospect, in spite of all that the Parliamentary Secretary has said, of getting employment in the mining industry in other parts of the country and with the Coal Board having the desire to reopen the pit as soon as possible but with the knowledge that that will take at least two years. Is it expected that at the end of that time, these 1,200 men will still be kicking their heels in idleness around the streets of Cumnock, New Cumnock and Auchinleck?
Whilst expressing his sympathy with the bereaved, the Parliamentary Secretary did not say a word about any determination on the part of the Government to ensure that other employment is provided in the area to which these men might turn.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman ought not to misquote me. I said that the Government recognise that here is a very large employment problem, as does the Coal Board, although, unfortunately, until the position has been fully examined and the size of the problem is known, it is not possible to say what can be done about it. The hon. Gentleman should be fair about this. I endeavoured to make clear on behalf of the Government—I do not want there to be any denial of this—that the gravity of this dreadful occurrence and its results are fully appreciated.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman said what he has just said he said, but I still say that he did not give any indication of the Government's willingness to take any measures to provide alternative employment in the area. I do not believe that they will do it. I do not have to use my imagination to discover what the Government will do in this respect. Unlike the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), whom the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to identify as the House of Commons in the course of his Second Reading speech, I know a little about this industry. The only job I know apart from the job I do here is that of mining coal.
My constituency happens to be in Lanarkshire, an area which has suffered more from pit closures in the last twenty or thirty years than any other county in Britain. I know that in recent years the Coal Board, with the assent of the Minister, has found it necessary to close coalmine after coalmine, putting many thousands of miners out of work, but the Minister's colleagues in other Departments of the Government have taken no steps whatever to provide employment in those areas.
When the Parliamentary Secretary talks about houses being provided for transferred miners, I can tell him that five years ago, only a few miles from my home, houses were being built for transferred miners, to take miners from my constituency into the adjoining constituency of Lanark to work in the developing coal pit at Douglas. Then came the considerable cut-back by the decision of 1958 and after the houses had been built for transferred miners, we found that the only employment in the area was cut off and houses that had scarcely been

occupied were emptied again and stood empty for a long time before we got other people to occupy them. The only people who could occupy them were those with employment 20 or 30 miles away and who had motor cars and could afford to live in this rather outlandish place.
The Government have done absolutely nothing to take alternative employment into the area. That is why the Parliamentary Secretary was able to say that for the men involved, the decision to close pits may sometimes seem harsh. It seems harsh to them when the only source of livelihood they have ever known is taken away and when the community that has been built up around the coalmines, when this great amount of social capital has been expended on building up the community, is simply left to become derelict because of the indifference of a Government who do not care.

Mr. Nabarro: Drivel.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member for Kidderminster is an expert on drivel. We have heard more of it from him than from any other hon. Member, in any part of the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary told us of the rundown in manpower of 165,000 in the past five years.

Mr. Peyton: I said 160,000.

Mr. Fraser: Then let us take the figure of 160,000——

Mr. Nakano: A very good thing it is.

Mr. Fraser: —as the rundown in the last five years. For the past twelve months the rundown is 21,000. For the most part, those men are from communities in which there is no alternative employment. The Parliamentary Secretary was not able to tell us what steps the Government had taken, and taken successfully. It is not so many words at the Dispatch Box that we want, but jobs. The hon. Gentleman was not able to tell us how many alternative jobs had been provided in those communities in which 160,000 miners have lost their jobs in the last five years.

Mr. Frank Tomney: The rundown is serious. Will the Government now state what figure they consider to be a stable one for the future economic running of the industry


in view of the enormous rundown to which my hon Friend has referred? Is it 600,000 or 500,000, for example?

Mr. Nabarro: Five hundred thousand is right.

Mr. Fraser: The Minister may give his figure at the end of the debate. The number employed just now is slightly over 540,000.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is wrong. The correct figure last week was——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member for Kidderminster is always trying to keep everyone right. The correct figure for the week ended 3rd November, 1962, which is the last figure made available to us by the Minister this week, was 540,600. I said that it was just over 540,00.

Mr. Nabarro: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Fraser: No, I will not. This is much too serious a matter——

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is quite wrong.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member for Kidderminster cannot even read the documents. The average for the first 44 weeks of the year was 553,210, but in the week ended 3rd November, 1962, the number on the colliery books was 540,600. The hon. Member probably will not understand that during the course of the 44 weeks manpower has been running down all the time. In fact, the number of men working in the industry came down by 1,000 from the last week in October to the first week in November, over the course of one week. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Kidderminster would keep quite for a little while.
It is a serious matter for very large parts of the country to move hundreds of thousands of men and their families. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Board deserved credit for the way in which it had handled this problem of the rundown of manpower. I agree with him. The Board deserves credit, but the Government take no credit at all from

the way in which they have handled it. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that men must be prepared to move. Does he know that miners in the north-east of England, and in Scotland, when they are displaced, find that only a very small minority of them can be absorbed into the mining industry in those few divisions in which there is a shortage of manpower? The rest know full well that if they make a move they have to take a one-way ticket to the Midlands, or to London, because those are the areas where jobs are available, and where they will get alternative employment.
I wish that a Minister, some time, would make an appreciation of the social problems that have been built up for the whole nation by this attracting-off of the population all the while into this narrow corridor from the north-west Midlands down to the English Channel. Many parts of the country are shedding population; most of those mining areas are shedding it all the time. The displaced miner who cannot move into another job in a coal mine is invariably forced into the position of taking a one-way ticket into the most congested parts of the United Kingdom. I wish that the Government would look at this.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to explain why the Government had decided not to license coal imports. He added, "at least for the time being". I did not like the warning note in those final words.

Mr. Nabarro: I did.

Mr. Fraser: Could we have quietness from the hon. Member for Kidderminster? A few months ago there were a great many irresponsible people, including not a few on the other side of the House, who were doing their utmost to prevail upon the Government to grant a licence to the Steel Company of Wales to import American coal.
May I quote some words from the managing director of the Steel Company of Wales, Mr. Carthwright—words repeated in the Colliery Guardian of 19th October? He is reported as saying:
You may be surprised to hear me say this, but our supplies of coking coal from the most efficient pits shipped in large train-loads should find us in a competitive position compared with anywhere else in Europe. This idea is gaining ground with the National Coal Board


and the British Transport Commission, and I can see that we are going to be fairly well placed."—
"we" being the Steel Company of Wales.
So, in a few short months, the spokesman of this company had come to realise that there was really no need to import coal at all, so why the Parliamentary Secretary should have continued to hold out this sop to the most reactionary supporters that he has in this country that the time might come when imports would be permitted, I do not know.

Mr. Peyton: I should like to observe that the reason why I put those words in was because we admit, as we must admit, the possibility of policies having to change to meet events. The hon. Gentleman and his party will never do that.

Mr. Fraser: The Parliamentary Secretary explained why the Government decided not to license coal imports and then added, "at least for the time being."—but then the Tories are only governing for the time being. He did not have to add those words. Those words were the sop to the small group of hon. Members of whom he was one until he got his promotion to his present office a few months ago.
I have up to now devoted my speech solely to making some kind of reply to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. I now turn to some of the things, but not all of them, which I had initially intended to say in the course of the debate. The out-turn of the coal industry this year seems to me to have been a great credit to all those who are engaged in the industry. Only twelve months ago, the Minister believed that the deficit would be increased this year—I do not think that he will deny that. If anyone wants to deny it, I would refer him to the Financial Memorandum of the Bill, presented on 17th November, 1961, which stated:
The possibility that this deficit may increase during 1962 cannot be ruled out
So there was an expectation or possibility that the deficit would increase this year. The right hon. Gentleman himself left us in do doubt that he thought that the tide would turn, but that the time has not come. I wanted to put

on record—it is no criticism of the right hon. Gentleman—that in the first six months of this year the Coal Board made a profit, after interest, of £9½ million, which seems to me a rather creditable performance, and the Parliamentary Secretary said that we hoped to finish the year with a small surplus.
Incidentally, I understand that the principal reason for changing the financial year of the Coal Board is to try to get the two half years in balance. Year after year, the first six months of the year have shown a good financial out-turn whereas the second half of the year has turned out not so well. People who wondered why the Board did so well in the first half of the year and not so well in the second half failed to take into account the fact that almost all the holidays were taken in the second half. Under the new arrangement, holidays will be spread more, and it is expected that the two halves of the year will be more equally balanced.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the record figure of 32·3 cwt. per manshift in the last week for which figures are available. This is a tremendous achievement and reflects an increase so far this year of 2·3 cwt., or 8 per cent., on the same period last year. This far outstrips anything that "Neddy" has suggested that industry should achieve.
I note with interest that the Scottish increase has been 9·9 per cent. and is up now to 26·75 cwt. per manshift in the last week for which figures are available, which was at the beginning of this month. This was about the figure held out to the Scottish Division only a short time ago as the figure it should regard as its target in its very difficult geological conditions.
Whilst we have been getting this great increase in productivity, however, the market for coal has not been expanding. During the first 44 weeks of the year the total sales amounted to 162·2 million tons compared with 163·1 million tons in the first 44 weeks of 1961. Thus, we are nearly 1 million tons down in consumption. This was despite the fact that the industry got a good deal of assistance from the weather, for this year was much colder than last year and colder than the average, whereas last year was warmer than the average.
Thus, sales have declined when these natural phenomena should have led to an increase. This is bound to give cause for concern. Production in the first 44 weeks of this year was 166·4 million tons compared with 159·7 million tons in the same period last year. I have already quoted the manpower figures, but I remind the House that this increase in production has been achieved by more output per man shift with fewer miners following a considerable reduction in manpower.
In these circumstances, I suggest that satisfaction with the industry's achievements must not blind us to the social consequences of pit closures and fewer jobs in the mining areas. Great hardship is being suffered and there is very considerable unemployment in parts of Wales, over a wide area in the northeast of England and in Scotland. Alternative jobs are not being provided and there is very little hope in these communities that anything will be done for them in the short term.
There is also widespread criticism of the Government for their failure to make use of the nation's resources. This brings me to the need for overall planning of our resources. We have often said that the Government have a responsibility to promote alternative employment in these areas before the pits are closed. We have also stressed the need for a national fuel policy. The Minister has always shrugged that off. I would like now to illustrate what we mean.
I can tell him of some steps that he could take and would take if he were to adopt a national fuel policy and seek to mobilise and use the resources of the nation. The right hon. Gentleman is also the Minister responsible for the oil industry and for electricity. Fuel oil consumption has risen this year by 15 per cent.

Mr. Nabarro: Jolly good.

Mr. Fraser: Our refinery output of fuel oil was down in the first six months of this year by 200,000 tons and the net imports of fuel oil up by 600,000 tons. This is the equivalent of about 1 million tons of coal. The Government should not encourage this overdependence on imported fuel.
The Minister is also responsible for electricity. I understand that a decision

has recently been taken to build a big new 4,000 megawatt generating station on the Medway Estuary. I realise that it is to be so constructed that it can be fuelled by coal or oil. But I have just enough intelligence to appreciate that the fact that it is being built near the big oil refineries is an indication that it is more likely to be oil fuelled than coal fuelled.
I suggest that instead of going ahead with this generating station the right hon. Gentleman should take the advice which the Press says he has been given by the Coal Board and build two 2,000 megawatt coal-powered stations, one in the North-East and the other in Scotland. Lord Robens has been reported as advocating this. At present, there is heavy unemployment in those areas. Many pits are threatened with closure in the next few years not because there is no longer any coal in them, but because the Coal Board finds it impossible to find a market for it.
If the Minister accepted this suggestion the consequence would be that he would be undertaking to use indigenous fuel from pits threatened with closure but with coal enough to last beyond the end of the century. Each project would give employment to about 10,000 miners and sustain a population of 50,000.
At this time, when we are so concerned with congestion problems in other parts of the country, when the right hon. Gentlemen's colleagues find it so difficult to steer alternative employment into these areas, and when the men are being left to stand about in idleness, would it not make good sense to agree to the construction of these two stations? They would do much to sustain the viability of those communities, and perhaps the Chancellor would not be so bothered by the balance of payments difficulties that arise from the imports of foreign fuel oil. I should have thought that from every point of view the case for the building of the stations was made out.
If the Central Electricity Generating Board, instead of taking electricity from those two stations, finds that marginally it would be cheaper to take it from the big station on the Medway, fuelled by oil, I suggest that the Minister and his colleagues have the responsibility of putting against this alleged marginal economic advantage the cost to public funds of keeping men and their families


in idleness, the cost of providing alternative jobs, if alternative jobs are ever to be provided, and, if the miners who will be displaced move to London or the Midlands, the cost of providing homes for them there, together with all the other services which will be needed for a community of 100,000, the number of people who would be kept in those two areas if the Government went ahead with the two stations I have suggested.
I should have thought that on this test the national interests would have been best served by keeping the miners employed in the North-East and in Scotland. That is what we mean by having a national fuel policy. It is a policy which would be in the national interest.
In any case, when we compare the two competing industries of oil and coal, let us not forget that the oil industry has never been asked to carry the heavy financial burdens which have all along been borne by the mining industry. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister know—this has been said over and over again, but it does not become less true with the passage of time—that the coal industry was obliged to sell coal to its customers for ten years at £1 to £2 per ton less than the European price. Private enterprise would never have been asked or expected to do that.
If the mines had been privately owned during that period, the income from sales would have been not less than £2,000 million more than the Coal Board got. But the Board was not allowed to take advantage of the scarcity. In fact, throughout the time coal was so terribly scarce, the Board was required to sell it at less than the cost of production and so built up deficits which are now helping to put up the price of coal. The Board had to bear a loss of £70 million on imported coal. No private industry could have been asked to do that.
So we could go on and on. The industry carried the cost of stocking coal to ameliorate the social hardship caused by the Government's crazy policies in 1957. No private industry could have done what the Coal Board did then. As a result of what it was required to do, it had to ask for more money to build up stocks. This sort of thing has gone on year after year, the industry thus building up the tremendous capital obligation

to the Minister which now stands at £958 million.
The Coal Board has made a very substantial operating profit in running the mines ever since vesting day, a profit which has been turned into a loss only because of the amount of interest which the Board has been obliged to pay back to the Minister over the years. I believe that the time has come when men of good will, independent people, looking at this matter would all come to the conclusion that in the interests of Great Britain this tremendous burden should be lifted from the shoulders of the Board and some hundreds of millions of pounds of the capital debt outstanding to the Minister should be wiped off. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he is willing to do this.

Mr. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend will get into trouble with me if he does so.

Mr. S. O. Davies: What would that matter?

Mr. Fraser: In view of the Government's new mood and their new appreciation of the value of planning, and their setting up of "Neddy", "Nicky" and the like, it should be possible to have some coherent planning for the whole country. We ought not to have to wait for "Neddy" to show us the way. It should be possible to work out a national fuel policy. I have given a few indications this afternoon how it could be done. All we ask is that the Minister should give a lead to his colleagues by saying that he, at least, is determined to mobilise all our resources in the interests of the whole nation.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I find the Bill somewhat innocuous, and I have no objection to its financial provisions. Generally, I shall give it my blessing and support.
I propose to apply myself this afternoon to more important and wider considerations relating to the condition of our coal industry. Under the chairmanship of Lord Robens important improvements have been made. Lord Robens is, of course, a thorough-going Tory today. That is why hon. Members opposite do not like him very much any more, and why they frequently quarrel with him.
Lord Robens has embraced all the principles enshrined in Tory philosophy for the conduct of nationalised industries, particularly the National Coal Board. The first of those principles is that the industry shall be conducted as a commercial enterprise with a view to earning a profit and not as a social welfare service, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) would have it conducted. It is not a social welfare service. It is a commercial enterprise. It was a social welfare service under the Labour Party, and that is why it lost so much money.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman direct himself to one problem which represents our complaint? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has said, for ten years the coal industry was not allowed to work on commercial principles by charging what it could get for its products. Had it been allowed to work on commercial principles then, it would today have had a reserve of several hundred thousand millions of pounds. Does the hon. Gentleman admit that or not?

Mr. Nabarro: No, I do not admit that at all. We have had this all over before. The right hon. Gentleman has listened to me making speeches on coal for twelve years, in two of those years from the Opposition benches, and what he always fails to realise is that one reason why the Labour Party got chucked out on its ear in 1951 was the appalling discontent in the country with the way nationalisation was working out——

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is dodging the question.

Mr. Nabarro: —the endless inflation, and the faulty statutes of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), which contributed so largely to those losses.
Today we have a chairman of the Coal Board converted to Tory philosophy and making the industry pay. Nobody welcomes more than I, the publication of the interim statement of the revenue results of the Board for the first half of this year, to 30th June, 1962, which shows that after—and I repeat "after"—accounting for full interest payments to my right hon. Friend, the industry showed a profit of £9·455

million compared with a loss of £17·571 in the second half of 1961.
It showed a profit, and here I pause to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power. It was so nice to hear from the Dispatch Box his maiden speech on coal, and even nicer to feel that a former colleague of mine is now sitting on the Treasury Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "You will be there soon."] I shall not be there.
My hon. Friend is sitting on the Treasury Bench putting forward both my views and his views on this important and basic industry. There was something about my hon. Friend's choice of words today which I liked. His enunciation is good, but his choice of words is even better when discussing a nationalised industry. He did not talk about a "surplus" earned by the Coal Board, but used the good homely Tory phrase, "the profit of the Coal Board". I, for myself, love profits. I love profits. [HON. MEMBERS: "For yourself."] Yes. Profits are what make me tick and they make this nation tick. Somebody has to pay the losses of the State boards, but if we can make them pay there will be some residual benefit for the taxpayer in the elimination of trading losses. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) has got hot pants. Does he wish to interrupt?

Mr. Albert Roberts: I should like the hon. Member to say a little more about why Lord Robens has brought about this transformation.

Mr. Nabarro: It is because he is a good salesman. He has gone around the country making speeches in support of the coal industry. He is the first good salesman that the Coal Board has ever had as chairman. He understands the industry and he passionately has its interests at heart. I support the sales campaign which he is conducting. When the National Union of Mineworkers was criticising the appointment of Lord Robens as chairman of the Coal Board—I supported that appointment—it was the Daily Telegraph which said that the union would really have had something to grumble about if the chairman who had been appointed had been the hon. Member for Kidderminster.

Mr. A Roberts: Mr. A Roberts rose——

Mr. Nabarro: I have answered the hon. Member adequately.
Not only is Lord Roben's appointment a good one, but it is producing the right result, which is to operate the Coal Board on a profitable basis and not as a social welfare service, as some misguided Socialists would have us operate it. When I see Lord Robens producing a trading profit—and I repeat profit—for the first half of 1962, I say to myself, "Gerald my boy; there is hope for Dr. Beeching yet." Dr. Beeching is following the same principles. He is trying to make the railways pay on good commercial lines.
What the hon. Member for Hamilton heard me say a few minutes ago to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, when the hon. Member for Hamilton was speaking, was not a threat by any means. I said that my hon. Friend would have a lot of trouble on his hands from me if he sought to waive the burden of interest which rests on the shoulders of the National Coal Board. Does the hon. Member for Hamilton really believe that any industry should have its capital supplied to it without any interest charges? If he does, he is the sort of infant amateur who ought to be working down the pits again as a boy and not sitting in the House of Commons as a Member of Parliament.

Mr. T. Fraser: If the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) had any capacity for hearing and understanding, he would know that what I was saying was that the coal-mining industry should not have been obliged by the Government to sell its products at less than the cost of production, so building up a tremendous deficit, and should not have been obliged to carry a loss of £70 million on coal which was imported not for the purposes of the coal-mining industry, but for industry generally.

Mr. Nabarro: That was not the burden of the hon. Member's argument. I am well aware of the propaganda of the National Union of Mineworkers and how it is intimately linked with the propaganda of the Labour Party. It does not make much impact in the coal consuming areas of Britain, although it makes some impact in the coal producing areas most largely furnishing Labour Mem-

bers of Parliament. The plain fact of the matter is that these interest charges largely result from losses in the past as well as the take-over price of the industry.

Mr. Michael Foot: That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was saying.

Mr. T. Fraser: Mr. T. Fraser rose——

Mr. Nabarro: I gave way once to the hon. Member. I noticed that he was not very generous about giving way to me. However, I am a generous-hearted chap and I will give way to him again.

Mr. Fraser: Tomorrow we shall be debating the Second Reading of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which will give an additional £35 million to the farmers without any question of interest rates. What is the view of the hon. Member about that?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that we will not be deflected from the Bill which we are now debating.

Mr. Nabarro: As you know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am never deflected in these matters. I am grateful to you, as always, for your protection on this important occasion. There is no doubt that tomorrow we will hear the voice of the hon. Member for Hamilton on subsidies for agriculture—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is dodging the question."] I shall not talk about it. It is out of order. I never do things which are out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I want to pass on to the capital investment moneys of the Board. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that there would be capital savings, but I do not see much evidence of that. The annual investments authorised for the Board were: in 1960–61, £94 million; in 1961–62, £93·3 milion; in 1962–63, £90 million; in 1963–64, £83 million. There is a slight downward curve, but my hon. Friend misses the important point, which is how much of the capital investment of the Coal Board is being provided from its own resources in those years.
The policy of Her Majesty's Government, as in the case of the electricity industry, must be to cause the maximum contribution to the capital investment programme of the Board year by year


to be met by its own resources and the minimum to fall by way of borrowing, on Treasury loans, through my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Peyton: The last hope we all share. May I explain to my hon. Friend what I said and what I was referring to? I said that there had already been substantial reductions in the capital investment programme of the Board. If my hon. Friend will look at the Revised Plan for Coal, for instance, he will see that it shows that, following the contraction of the market, there had been a reduction of £175 million over the ten years' programme of capital investment until 1966. Since then, there have been further reductions. I think that what I said was entirely justified.

Mr. Nabarro: I do not think so. I do not like to be drawn into conflict with my hon. Friend. The Plan for Coal is now quite an old document. I quote from a much more recent document, Public Investment in Great Britain, October, 1962, only four weeks old. The four figures which I have just quoted—£94 million in 1960–61, £93·3 million in 1961–62, £90 million in 1962–63, and £83 million in 1963–64—are from a document which is only four weeks old, not last year's document. What matters to me, though, is whether the Government are applying with sufficient rigidity and sufficiently accurately their pronounced policy in the earlier months of this year to the effect that the maximum contribution in capital investments within nationalised industries should come from the internal resources of the industries themselves, and the least possible from external borrowing, namely, by Treasury grant through the Minister of Power. I hope that my right hon. Friend will answer this point when he replies because it has a direct bearing on this Bill, and while I continue talking perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will scrutinise the source of my figures.
Now I want to say something about productivity in the coal industry. Last week we opened National Productivity Year in this country, and all over Britain important meetings are taking place in support of increasing productivity in every sphere of industrial, agricultural, and professional activity. My duty on the day that National Productivity Year was inaugurated was opening it in

Coventry with Sir Vincent Tewson talking for the trades unions, and I was asked to talk for the employers. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) should not snort whenever he hears the word "employers". One cannot run anything without a boss, and everything has to be run in industry by bosses, and the voice of the bosses ought occasionally to be heard.
I thought that it was important to say what I considered was the correct definition of productivity, and I said that in my view productivity was higher output per man hour—o.m.h.—with fewer hands, and hence at lower cost. I might have added that the epitomy of increased productivity, the gold medallion, if the House wishes, for productivity in the last twelve months ought to be given to the National Coal Board because its performance in productivity has been magnificent. I think that, at the beginning of National Productivity Year its achievements ought to be quoted in support of every national productivity meeting.
I quarrel with the hon. Member for Hamilton about his interpretation of figures. I am sorry if I interrupted his speech. I did not mean to be rude in any way, but I prefer to take average figures for employment in the pits over a period of months, and not take them at a precise date, because illness and other seasonal factors often influence a published figure at a precise date. I quote from the Ministry of Power's Weekly Statistical Statement. The average weekly employment in the pits of Britain during the first 44 weeks of the year 1962 was 553,210 men. The average employment in the first 44 weeks of 1961 was 572,110 men. In other words, there was a decline in the average employed over comparable periods of 44 weeks of 19,000 men. Production—not productivity—for the first 44 weeks of 1961 was 159·7 million tons, and in the first 44 weeks of 1962 it was 166·431 million tons. So, with a lesser labour force—by 19,000 men—an increased tonnage of 7 million tons was produced.

Mr. Roy Mason: That is an illustration of nationalisation.

Mr. Nabarro: No, it is not an illustration of nationalisation. It is an


illustration of a good Tory appointment of Lord Robens as chairman of the Board. There has been a 3½ per cent. drop in manpower, and a 4¼ per cent. increase in tonnage mined, and I believe that these are indeed creditable achievements and should be widely advertised as the performance of the National Coal Board.
It was the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney)——

Mr. Shinwell: Get on with this comic turn and say something serious.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Member for Easington becomes more garrulous than ever. When he is 88, not 78, I suppose he will be talking non-stop. It was the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North who wanted to know what was the optimum figure for manpower in the mining industry, and he asked my right hon. Friend to reply to this when he wound up the debate. I want to intervene and give my optimum figures. I am aiming at a manpower force in the coal industry of 500,000 men, reduced from 700,000 men five or six years ago. I want to see an industry of 500,000 men turning out 200 million tons of coal a year because that, in my view, would be a just reward for the huge investment of capital monies which the nation has made in the modernisation of the coal industry in the last few years.
The hon. Member for Hamilton should not bemoan a drop in manpower in the industry. He ought to applaud it. He ought to recognise that if we can go on steadily reducing the manpower in this industry we shall cause less and less men to work underground, which was one of the earliest of Socialist philosophies. If we do that while maintaining output at the level which is required by the nation, namely, approximately 200 million tons of coal a year, then this nationalised undertaking will in my view be properly conducted.
I want to deal finally with two points made by the hon. Member for Hamilton. He spoke once again on a brief from the National Union of Mineworkers about the Government's over-dependence on imported fuel. It is true that we imported more crude oil last year than in earlier years, but surely the hon. Gentleman, and even the most bigoted of Socialist supporters opposite with their

friends in the National Union of Mineworkers, must understand that unless we go on importing great quantities of crude oil we cannot—

Mr. T. Fraser: I did not talk about the import of crude oil, but about the import of fuel oil. The hon. Gentleman must listen to what is said.

Mr. Nabarro: Crude oil and fuel oil combined, if the hon. Gentleman wishes. I am not quarrelling about that point, but the words he used, and I do not incorrectly attribute them to him, were "over-dependence on imported fuel". Whether it is crude oil or fuel oil, it is still imported oil. The hon. Gentleman was making the balance of payments point that we ought to depend more on home-produced fuel. But that is an entirely false and irrelevant consideration, because he should set it against the value of exports of petroleum products from this country, none of which would be achieved without this large volume of imported petroleum products, notably crude oil.
For example, compare the performance of the coal industry's exports from Britain with the performance of the petroleum industry's exports. I took the trouble to look up the figures in the Trade and Navigation Returns. The hon. Gentleman can study them for himself. He might learn a little more about fuel economics if he did. He would find from the last Trade and Navigation Return published in September, 1962, that if the petroleum product exports from Britain in the first nine months of this year proceed at the same rate for the whole year—and there is no reason why they should not—the value of United Kingdom exports of petroleum products will be no less than £115 million this year.
What will be the value of coal exports If we are lucky—£30 million. This means that petroleum products are responsible for nearly four times as much in earnings Of foreign exchange as coal exports from Britain, notwithstanding that we have to import crude and fuel oil, and that if we did not we could not have any petrol to run our motor cars, or aviation fuel, or grease, kerosene or lubricants. With all that we are still able to achieve, with our petroleum products, exports four times as great as can be managed


by the coal industry—and then the hon. Member far Hamilton makes the jibing point that we are becoming over-dependent on foreign fuel.
My second point about the hon. Member's speech is a Scottish one. He was telling us a hard-luck story about the Lanarkshire pits. Of course more pits have been shut down in Lanarkshire than anywhere else in Britain. It is a very good thing too, because many of them are obsolete. We do not want to keep obsolete pits open, as ancient monuments, whether they be in Ebbw Vale or in Lanarkshire.
When I was battling before the Mackenzie Committee in Edinburgh, on 27th November last, giving evidence most of the day against the building of new and larger hydro-electric power stations in the Highlands, on grounds of extravagant financial investment and battling for the building of thermal coal-fired power stations in Lanarkshire instead—in order to employ Lanarkshire coals of high ash content and low quality—and thus avoiding the closure of more pits, I received no support from the hon. Member for Hamilton.
In fact, looking down the list of individuals and organisations giving written or oral evidence before the Committee on the generation and distribution of electricity in Scotland, namely, the Mackenzie Committee, I find the name of only one Socialist Member of Parliament—and he did not take the trouble to turn up in person in Edinburgh to be grilled by the Committee; he sent a written statement of evidence. His name was George Thomson, the hon. Member for Dundee, East. Before you call me to order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I say that I am merely quoting from the Report of the Committee?
Two Tory M.P.s gave evidence orally. They both took the trouble. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. N. McLean) gave oral evidence, and I gave my evidence at length, and orally. The burden of my evidence, which was too lengthy to be published in the Report—[Interruption.] I did not notice the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale at the Committee. He is not interested in the Lanarkshire miners.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: He has enough trouble in Ebbw Vale.

Mr. Nabarro: Of course he has. But I leave that question aside, whether or not he takes the Labour Whip.
Of course, a problem arises with the shutting down of pits in Scotland, but the hon. Member should fall in behind me and stop the extravagance of the Hydroelectric Board. The future power requirements of Scotland in the essential industrial field should be based on Lanarkshire coal, instead of the hon. Member for Hamilton bringing to this House the hypocrisy and humbug of the hard-luck story he has told us this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Hamilton and his friends are jealous of the fine fashion in which my right hon. Friend, ably aided by Lord Robens, is conducting the affairs of the nationalised coal industry. We are giving the nation 200 million tons of coal a year, which is all that it requires at present. But the exports of the coal industry are not yet high enough, and must be increased in the next few years, whether or not we go into Europe. The overburdened consumers of this country urgently require a reduction in the price of coal. The cost of coal is being reduced, but the price to the consumer is not.
In the west of England—and I see my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) nodding assent—and in the south of England the consumers greatly object to having to pay the present high price of coal. Next year and the year after we shall be getting coal prices down. For the time being, we have got over our first hurdle. We are beginning to make the industry pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "We?"] Yes, we—the Tory Party. At the last General Election we insisted that we would make the industry pay. There is hope for Dr. Beeching yet. We will make the railways pay before we are through. The basis of sound Tory philosophy—the right hon. Member for Easington has got hot pants now—is to conduct these nationalised industries as sound, commercial enterprises, and not as social welfare clubs, as the Socialists would have us conduct them.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I wonder what the thousands of miners in the North-East, Scotland and many other parts of the coal fields would say if they


had listened to the speech just made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).

Mr. Nabarro: They would applaud it, of course—and enjoy it.

Mr. Shinwell: Several years ago the late lamented Stanley Baldwin referred to the "hard-faced profiteers" on the Tory benches. It may be that in succeeding years the image has undergone a transformation. The pretence now is that they have consideration and solicitude for the workers of the country—those who are impoverished and those who find themselves without employment. I prefer the image of the hon. Member for Kidderminster.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Shinwell: He represents and reflects the true Tory mind.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Shinwell: Apart from the comic interludes which are characteristic of the hon. Member, and with which we are now only too familiar——

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Shinwell: —the hon. Member rests his case upon the assumption that if, in Tory terms and capitalist nomenclature, an industry pays its way we can afford to disregard the social consequences.

Mr. Nabarro: I did not say anything of the sort.

Mr. Shinwell: That is a philosophy that hon. Members on these benches repudiate and decline to accept.
We naturally welcome the Bill, but we do so for reasons quite different from those advanced by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I can express my view almost in a sentence on this question. Without investment in the public sector—and that is what the Minister is advancing in the Bill—our economic situation would be more parlous than it is at present. That has been admitted in high financial quarters. That is the sole reason why the right hon. Gentleman embodies in this Measure a provision Which makes it possible for one section of the public sector to provide additional employment either directly or indirectly—directly by the employment of mine

workers and indirectly by the purchase of essential material, without which the minting industry could not continue to produce.
We are under no illusion. This is not generosity; this is not a gift from the Government. The Government know only too well that without financial provisions of this character for the nationalised mining industry, and for the Transport Commission on an even grander scale—if that term is relevant they would find themselves in a more serious situation. This is not a gift. Nevertheless, we accept it, because it is essential that the indigenous material at our hands should be exploited and that the mining industry should be developed, because the country cannot afford to ignore an indigenous industry of such value.
I regard this as a very serious debate indeed, and I am very pleased that we are permitted within the procedure of the House to discuss the wider aspects of the industry. I want to present the real nature of the problem. To begin with, it is a matter—and this is highly relevant—of how much coal can be produced, but, more particularly, how much coal can be sold in this country and overseas. That is the first problem that confronts us.
The second is to what extent is indigenous fuel at the mercy of imported fuel—a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) rightly referred. The third factor, to which we have ventured to draw attention on previous occasions and to which I attach considerable importance, is the matter of productivity in the industry—the increase in production per man-shift, and I shall deal with that factor, to begin with.
Reference has been made to the achievements of Lord Robens. I doubt whether the chairman of the National Coal Board will welcome the unsolicited testimonial from the hon. Member for Kidderminster. It will certainly not enhance his popularity among the unemployed miners, but I would not detract from the value of the achievements of Lord Robens, except that I should like to know what were his instructions.
I wonder if the Minister of Power would tell us what instructions were


given to Lord Robens on his appointment. Was it an instruction to promote the highest efficiency whatever the cost? Were the instructions issued to Lord Robens that the industry should be contracted, even if it meant disregarding the social consequences? Or was Lord Robens merely asked to be objective? Within that term, almost anything could happen, as indeed, almost anything has happened.
The fact of the matter is that, with rationalisation in the industry, increased mechanisation, modernisation, reorganisation, whatever we care to call it, the inevitable consequence must be the employment of fewer men. We have to face it. The hon. Member for Kidderminster talked about 200 million tons of coal being produced by 500,000 men.

Mr. Nabarro: Jolly good.

Mr. Shinwell: I do not take the slightest notice of the hon. Member's predictions—
—and still the wonder grew,
That one small head could carry, all he knew.

Mr. Nabarro: It is the largest head in the House.

Mr. Shinwell: I told the hon. Gentleman once before that he was a blatherskite. Now he is a conceited blatherskite.
Nobody is in a position to predict accurately what is to happen in the mining industry, except one thing. Fewer men are to be employed——

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Shinwell: —with all the dire, grave, deplorable social consequences that are bound to ensue. After all, that is the subject to which we have to address ourselves. If we are told, as, indeed, I thought the Parliamentary Secretary ventured to say, that the level of employment in the mining industry remains the same—if that is what he believes—all I can say is that all the statistics contradict him.
Let us take, for example, the constituency, with large mines, some of them flourishing and some of them not so good, which I have the honour to represent in Durham County. The number of men has been reduced in the course of ten years from well over 100,000 to about 70,000, and Mr. Sam Watson, the

secretary of the Durham miners, has predicted that in the course of a few years, the number will be about 50,000. It does not follow from that that there will he a loss of production. Nor does it follow that we should require to close down pits, because we can have a number of pits operating with fewer men and succeed in increasing production. All that is possible, but we cannot ignore the inevitability, because of reorganisation, modernisation and the rest, of a gradual decline in the number of persons employed in the industry.
It is not an evil thing that men should be required to go down into the bowels of the earth to earn a living, despite the accidents, calamities and disasters with which we are familiar. If alternative employment can be found on the surface, by all means let us try to secure it. Let us face the facts. The coal is there—indigenous material of great value—and somebody has to go down into the bowels of the earth to produce it, unless we can discover some mechanical device which enables us to bring the coal to the surface without the employment of manual labour, and so far we have not succeeded.
So, I repeat, let us face the consequences of the first notable factor which confronts the industry—the inevitability of fewer men being employed. I should not have ventured to take part in this, or indeed in any other debate, unless I could find myself in a position of offering some constructive proposal, and I now venture to put before the House, although there may be considerable and indeed violent disagreement with me, even in my own circle, this proposal.
I took part many years ago, as Secretary for Mines, in a conference at the International Labour Office on the subject of the reduction of the hours of mining labour. On behalf of the Labour Government, I was instructed to try to promote a seven-hour day in the mining industry. Eventually, with the aid of the late M. Albert Thomas, the late A. J. Cook and many others, I succeeded in obtaining an agreement for a seven and a quarter hour day. Unfortunately, the Convention was never ratified. I now say that this question must be faced by the Government, the mining industry and the National Coal Board. If it is practicable there should be a reduction in


the hours of labour and, I say quite frankly, for the purpose of employing more men at the coal face and on the surface, for those who get the coal from the bowels of the earth and those who handle it on the surface.
I do not suggest for a moment—it would be foolish to do so—that this is a complete solution. A reduction in working hours is something which will have to be accepted, not only in the mining industry but on the railways and in a great number of industrial organisations in this country sooner or later.
Now I come to the other matter to which I referred, namely, this challenge to the mining industry from imported fuel. The Government's policy is obvious. First, they do not like the nationalised mining industry, let us make no bones about that. They have to accept it now because they would never dream of handing this nationalised industry back to private owners. They would not try that on. It would not succeed. But, all along, the Government's policy has been to present a challenge to the coal industry by relying to a very large extent—to a much too great extent in my opinion—on imported fuel oil, and crude oil also, as was rightly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton. It may be advantageous from the standpoint of the Government, to present a challenge to the coal industry to promote greater efficiency and more modernisation, to reduce the number of men employed in the industry, and to provide a profit by providing the necessary competition to an indigenous industry. That has been the policy of the Government.
I come to the third point, namely, the question of coal sales. There has been a lot of talk about coal sales even by Lord Robens who, I think, has been talking through his hat about the possibility of selling a great deal of coal abroad. In Europe they are confronted with precisely the same evil factors which confront the British mining industry. Anyone who knows anything about the European coal position will know that in the next ten or twenty years we shall not sell anything like the volume of coal overseas that we sold in the past—nothing like it. Indeed it is likely that exports will fall as time goes

on, because in Europe they are confronted by the same challenge from fuel oil as confronts the coal industry in this country. And, it may be, with the threat of atomic power—who can tell? Certainly the coal industry is much more likely to decline.
Now I come to a matter which seems to concern the hon. Member for Kidderminster who, as usual, having made his speech, has left the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman loves to talk, but he hates to listen. What is the hon. Member for Kidderminster worried about? The industry has to pay. The industry has got to produce a profit—never mind about the consequences of producing that profit. How the hon. Gentleman glories in the fact that the mining industry, under Lord Robens, has produced a profit, a surplus of £9 million. Does it matter what has happened? Does it matter that thousands of men have been thrown out of work and many pits have been closed? It does not seem to matter to the hon. Member for Kidderminster or to the Minister of Power. I tell that to the right hon. Gentleman frankly. It is better to be straight and honest and forthright about it. It does not seem to matter to the Minister. But in the County of Durham we are told that next year another 5,000 men will lose their jobs—maybe more. The same thing will apply elsewhere and the numbers employed in the industry will be steadily reduced. And this all for the purpose of making the pits pay.
I had the privilege, indeed the honour, of piloting through this House the legislation which nationalised the coal industry. It was by no means the easy task that some people imagine, far from it. Nor were the consequences as pleasant as one might have anticipated. I admit that freely and frankly. Although we were optimistic at that time we had, apparently, forgotten the long period of years during which the privately-owned mining industry had been neglected. Not only was the industry neglected, but it had no proper machinery, nor the requisite organisation. By the way—this may be regarded as a regression—some critics of the nationalised mining industry talk about the industry not producing a large enough surplus, as if the privately-owned industry of bygone days—the industry as it existed when I first came


into political life, before the First World War, during and after it and in the 1920s and 1930s—was making a great profit.
Then most of the pits were in debt to the banks. Practically no dividends were paid. I see sitting opposite the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) who has great knowledge of the mining industry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was dispossessed when we took over the industry, although I am bound to say he did not do badly out of it. Perhaps that is one of the troubles. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows only too well that many times the private concerns suffered from severe losses and were in financial difficulties. The assumption that the privately-owned mining industry flourished and made vast profits is not true.
When we nationalised the industry we had no thought of singling out particular areas which were making either a profit or a loss or of closing down pits. If I may use the expression, we thought in global terms. We thought that although one part of the industry might not pay, other parts would. That is precisely the way that many large stores are run, if I may use a simple illustration. It may be that in a store the ribbon counter pays handsomely, although the lingerie counter does not pay as well. But no one would think of closing down the lingerie counter. It is an essential feature of the store—I will not say why, I will leave that to the judgment of others.
That was our conception of how to run the nationalised mining industry. But that is not the conception of this Government. Nor, apparently, I regret to say, is it the conception of Lord Robens. The idea is that if a pit is not economic—by the way what does that mean? Is there a thorough investigation into whether a pit is economic? What does that mean? Does it mean that there is no coal in the pit? Does it mean that there are physical difficulties in production? Or does it mean that the pit cannot produce a profit? A pit may be thoroughly economic in the sense that it contains material, and there are no excessive faults in the strata, but it may not produce a profit, although it could go on producing coal and providing employment for men, and not produce

derelict areas which are being created at the present time.
I say to the Government that this Bill is a temporary Measure to help one section of the public sector. It is all very well far the right hon. Gentleman and his precious Government—I am almost inclined to say "wretched Government" in this context. Let me tell him frankly that we hon. Members on this side of the House who represent mining constituencies, and know how so many of our constituents are suffering, are getting a little tired of the Government's policy, or lack of policy. If the Government think that they are going to get away with this sort of thing, they are making a vast mistake. They are wrong if they think that the discontent among the miners, and the protests, which are now perhaps no more than a murmur will not become more massive in proportion and express themselves more strongly. I issue this challenge to the Government as did my hon. Friend, and rightly so.
If unemployment is resulting from Government policy—and it is—they should produce their alternative. Either there should be a reduction in the hours of labour or they should provide the men, I shall not say with the full amount of wages which they were receiving when they were working in the industry, but with something not far removed from that. They should not rely on unemployment benefit, but receive some supplementary benefit to recompense them for the effects of Government policy, or they should have alternative work provided for them.
To say that men can migrate to other parts of the coal field on the assumption that they can be readily and easily absorbed, is completely to misunderstand the position. I have no doubt that some men would be absorbed. I wonder if we could be told the numbers of men who have returned to Durham having gone to the Midlands and Nottingham. The same applies to men in Scotland. They have returned, not only because of housing accommodation, but because they prefer to remain in their own districts. There should be mobility, yes, of a kind, but not enforced mobility, not migration which comes about as a result of pressure exercised through Government policy. If men want to travel from one part of the country to another to


try to find employment elsewhere that is all to their credit and it displays an adventurous spirit, but that men should be forced to leave their families simply because of the closing of pits, is not good enough.
I challenge the Government either to persuade the National Coal Board to cry a halt to this policy of closing pits, or to provide alternative employment. If the Government cannot do either, it is time they got out.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I do not often intervene in debates about mining, because my constituency lies far away from coalfields. My experience of coalmines is confined to knocking my head on the roof of one, from which I still bear the scar. I can understand the violence of feeling, without sharing it personally, about the displacement of miners, to which I shall refer in the course of my speech when I follow what was said by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).
I wish to refer to only one point, which is about exports from this country. We understand that Lord Robens expects that there might be considerable opportunities for the coal industry to export to Europe in due course. Of course, we all share that hope, but in this situation there are many factors which are rather hard to foresee. Coal is not a commodity in a free market anywhere in Europe. No European country leaves coal to manage by itself. That is for obvious social reasons which have been touched on this afternoon. There is no possibility that in the immediate future that position will change. First, we have competition from oil. During the last ten years the share of oil in European energy requirements has risen from 13 per cent. to 30 per cent. During that period the share of coal has fallen from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent., and is still falling.
There are one or two sinister clouds on the horizon so far as it concerns coal. At present, coal is exclusively used for coking, but I understand that experiments in the United States with other forms of firing for this process might mean, if they are technically improved, that even in coking there may be com-

petition from other forms of fuel. Then there is the nuclear programme, far advanced in this country and begun in all European countries. It is expected that at least by 1970 it will be producing power normally at the thermal power stations to which at the moment 25 per cent, of the coal output goes and that it will be competitive by 1970.
If so, we must expect further competition from those two sources against the outlet for coal at the moment. Certainly, the price of oil is unlikely to change. We also have the rigidity of the coal industry due to amortisation difficulties and high labour costs, which makes it difficult to take advantage of changes of policy and price. It coal were in a free market the countries of the Six estimate that only 90 million of the 250 million tons of European coal would be competitive. That proportion is rather higher in the United Kingdom, I am told. I should be interested to know what proportion it is estimated in this country is competitive with other forms of fuel.
Even if competition from oil and nuclear fuel can be ignored, we have the competition from imported coal, especially United States coal which at present freight rates is between 50 per cent. and 25 per cent, cheaper c.i.f. European ports than coal produced at pithead in Europe. This is for obviously geological reasons, about which hon. Members know. It is very unlikely that American coal will become less competitive in price. The output per man per day in the United States, owing to its geological conditions, is no less than 22 tons in opencast mining and 10 tons from underground, as compared with the average European output of 2 tons per day.
This leads me to say that no other conclusion is possible than that an orderly reduction in the coal industry of Europe, including that of the United Kingdom, will be necessary. In those circumstances, can we envisage that Europe will be in a position to accept large imports of coal, either from us or from anyone else, even if we are inside the Common Market?

Mr. William Blyton: Does the hon. Member appreciate that under the document on synthesis which is the European Common


Market energy plan to the end of the transitional stage, coal production will be halved by 1970?

Mr. Kershaw: I should not say it is to be halved; I do not think any exact target has been set. It is certainly envisaged that there will be a reduction in the coal industry, and that it will be confined by the date the hon. Member has mentioned to those pits which can he truly competitive with other forms of fuel. Certainly, if we are outside the Common Market we can definitely write off any possibility of our being able to compete in the European market with any of our coal exports.
The method used both by Europe and by us to support coal in the meantime is of importance to our exports and for our domestic reasons. For the moment, I wish to discuss what the methods should be. The Report of the Robinson Committee on European Energy, to which all countries lent their weight and agreed with as a technical document, laid down that an abundant supply of cheap energy was desirable on any economic ground. No one could possibly quarrel with that, but, apart from the time factor, it is essential to begin retraining and rehabilitation of those in the industry.
In passing, I suggest that it would be economical and, in the long run, from a human point of view, much better that displaced miners should not be kept in employment in uneconomical pits but retrained and rehabilitated in industries outside their industry. The financial method of sustaining the coal industry can be either by a tax on other fuels, which generally we have at present, or by a subsidy for coal. The subsidy could be applied to the consumer or to the coal industry as a whole, or even to individual pits for the time being. I suppose that it could be a combination of both of these.
A tax on other fuels raises the price of energy generally and it benefits the whole of the coal industry, whether it needs help or not. It provides no incentive for the ordinary reorganisation of the coal industry. Its advantage is that it is extremely simple, whereas subsidies, though efficient, selective and cheaper, are complicated to administer.
The policy of the Six in Europe at present, which is relevant to our exports,

is to give a subsidy and not to tax other fuels. In their project, which has not yet been adopted, but has been discussed several times and looks like being adopted before long, they envisage that by 1970 there shall be free entry for coal into the Common Market except from the Soviet bloc. By 1970, therefore, British coal must be competitive with other coals in the world. I ask my first question: will it be? By 1970, the Common Market proposes, there will be a nil duty on crude oil and very low duties on oil products, with a low, uniform Purchase Tax of about 2 dollars a ton. I ask my second question: can British coal meet that competition?
In general, therefore, the European fuel policy, if it is adopted, as it is likely to be, is a policy, as far as fiscal means can achieve it, to make energy as cheap as possible. Will the British coal industry be able to meet that challenge in 1970? From what I have heard this afternoon and elsewhere, I do not believe that a denial that these difficulties exist will provide an adequate answer. If, by 1970, we cannot meet competition from United States' coal and from world oil, I do not believe that Lord Robens' talk about exports will be of any use or that our exports are likely to be acceptable to anybody, because they will be too high in price.
In so far as the measures before us tend to get the industry into training for that in 1970—it cannot be done in a hurry—I believe that they will be to the advantage of those working in the industry and of the country.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: I do not intend to tread the same ground as has been trodden in the speeches delivered during the last two hours. But I shall devote a little of my time to dealing with certain of the myths and images which are being projected on to the public mind as a result of speeches made in the House from time to time by Government supporters and, particularly, by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
We all listened, not with surprise, to his declaration, which was a source of great pride for him, that he judged the success or efficiency of any industry by its profitability, and that he took great


pride in being a disciple of Tory philosophy and economics applied to society in general and to the coal mining industry in particular. He said that the present improved prospects of the coal industry, measured by its profit of £9 million, are due to the application by Lord Robens of Tory philosophy. This is characteristic of the declarations made by the hon. Member from time to time. He makes them with a great deal of flippancy, and he made his declaration today in his usual flamboyant style.
But anybody who is acquainted with the history of this industry knows full well that it is a long-term policy of capital investment, conducted by the Coal Board over the past ten years, which is responsible for the turn of the fortunes of this industry, and that it is not due to the influence or the power or the vision or the salesmanship or the Tory philosophy of Lord Robens. We are beginning to see the results of social planning in this great industry.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) mentioned, this prosperity and this growth in the efficiency of the industry has been obtained only at a very high price—the price of social misery which has been paid by hundreds of thousands of miners and their families because of the inevitable reorganisation of the mining industry. I therefore do not think that the hon. Member for Kidderminster is entitled to claim that the turn in the fortunes of this great industry is in any way due to the application of Tory philosophy. It is the result of long-term social planning.
It has always been fashionable during coal debates for Tory speakers to give the impression to the consumers that the Coal Board and the miners are holding the community to ransom. I think that this impression, which has been deeply embedded in the minds of consumers, should be eradicated by a statement of the facts. One can quite understand the ordinary consumer, including the ordinary landlady, who has to pay £9 5s. a ton for coal, believing that all this money flows into the coffers of the Coal Board and that a substantial amount of it finds its way into the pockets of the miners.
What are the facts? Out of the £9 5s., the Coal Board receives only £4 10s. 10d. That is the average price of a ton of coal being sold. There is a balance of £4 14s. 2d., which goes elsewhere. Hon. Members opposite should explain to their constituents and to the landladies of Bloomsbury that not all the money which they pay for their ton of coal goes to the Coal Board, which receives only £4 14s. 2d. out of the £9 5s.
This shows that the cost of the distribution of a ton of coal is greater than the cost of its production; that the cost of coal is not solely or mainly determined by the cost of production but is greatly influenced by the cost of distribution; and that the miners and the Coal Board, therefore, should not be the victims of this criticism by the consumer.
A more important fact should be brought to the attention of the public. Miners, owing to the activities of the Press in past years, have never been popular with the public. If members of the public understood the life of the miners better, they would not be so eager in their condemnation. There is a general impression that the £9 5s. paid by the consumer for a ton of coal goes into the pockets of the grasping miners. There is the image of the miner who is holding society to ransom. It is believed that miners have converted the industry into a kind of much cow. Miners' wages account for only £2 9s. 2d. of the £9 5s. paid for a ton of coal. Of the £9 5s. paid by the consumer there is £6 15s. 10d. that the miners do not see.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster said that the industry should be judged upon its profitability and that the application of the Tory philosophy would have produced better results long ago. If, during the first ten years after the war, the industry had been in the hands of private enterprise, the country would have experienced a coal famine, because it is Tory philosophy to sell coal at the highest price obtainable. We all know that, as a consequence of the war, Europe was famished and demanded all commodities, especially coal and other forms of fuel.
Private enterprise, in the application of its philosophy, would have exported coal to Europe by the million tons because it could have obtained a higher


price there and have had a higher percentage of profit. It would have disregarded the welfare of the nation. Industry would have collapsed. We should have been faced with mass unemployment. That would have been the result of the application of Tory philosophy in mining. It was the Labour Government and their planning and policy of nationalisation which averted that catastrophe for the nation. They acted for the good of the country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said, if the Board had been allowed to enjoy the freedom of Tory philosophy and allowed to make a profit disregarding completely the interests of the nation, it would have accumulated about £2,000 million, because it could have raised the price of coal by anything from £1 to £2 a ton. That is why we are faced today, as we have been before, with the question of the Board's borrowing powers. Why has the Board been forced from time to time to obtain the consent of the House for the advance of capital so that it can expand and operate its business? It is because the Board did not have the right in those days to raise the price of coal.
If the Board had had that fragment of Tory liberty and freedom in the first ten years after the war, what could it have done? If it had been able to put only 1d. per cwt. on the total production of 200 million tons a year for the first ten years, it would have increased its revenue by about £166 million. If the Board had been allowed to increase its price by about 3d. per cwt., which would not have been a great increase during those years when the demand was so great and the world provided us with a scarcity market, it would have had an increased revenue of over £500 million.
The strange thing is that in the first ten years after the war the Board borrowed £500 million. If it had been allowed to put 3d. on each cwt., it would have had no need to borrow £500 million from the Government. It would have saved the payment of £165 million in interest charges on the loan, which, in turn, would have wiped out all the remaining balances above the £500 million up to the £610 million. There would have been no need for the Board to come to the House to borrow money from time to time.

Mr. Donald Box: Would the hon. Gentleman mind explaining one point to me? I have heard mention during the debate of the Board not being able to charge an economic price after the first ten years after the war. The Coal Industry Nationalisation Act is a piece of Socialist legislation. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why a regulation was included which prevented the Board charging an economic price?

Mr. Thomas: Yes. The coal industry was nationalised for the purpose of satisfying a social need. The Board was inhibited from making a profit. It was expected to break even, not to make a profit by means of putting accumulated reserves into cold storage. That was the difference between Tory and Socialist philosophy. If the Tory philosophy had applied, the mining industry could have gone on accumulating millions, if not thousands of millions, of pounds, and putting them in reserve, but at the expense of social calamity and disaster.
It is evident, from the discussions now going on in Europe about the future organisation, control and operation—not only of steel and iron, but of coal as well—that the Government intend to enter the Common Market. This is the time, therefore—while they have the opportunity and before they lead us into the Common Market—for them to do something for the British coal industry, for I have no doubt that the giants in Europe are already stripping themselves to the waist in readiness for the competition that is to come. It is obvious that the Government should now do something for the British coal industry to enable it to meet this challenge.
This is the moment when they should seriously consider the question of reconstructing the capital of this industry so that, if or when we enter the Common Market, it will be unfettered and unhampered by the large interest charges it now bears. If the British coal industry must face the challenge of the Common Market, I beg the Government to consider this capital issue so that the industry can compete under the most favourable conditions.
Since the Government appear to have suspended their decision on the capital reconstruction of the coal industry, and I understand that the matter is still in


the air, I hope that they will remember the efforts made in the past by the industry and the burdens which have had to be carried by the miners in the post-war years and expedite their decision on capital reconstruction so that the industry will have a fair chance in the markets of Europe.
Only if the Government take this action now will the industry be guaranteed its survival in the face of any machinations on the Continent, particularly regarding the substitution of coal by oils and natural gases from Holland and the Sahara.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Donald Box: I cannot claim the knowledge and experience of mining which the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) has, but I must take him to task on one point. I interrupted him during his speech and he told me that the reason why the National Coal Board had not charged an economic price in the years immediately after the war was a self-imposed restriction. I would suggest, with respect, that one cannot have it both ways and that if it was a self-imposed restriction it is no good recriminating about it now and implying that the Tories, in some way or other, were to blame for it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We should get the position clear. During those years the price charged by the Coal Board was not completely based on its own freedom to do so, or its own jurisdiction, but was, in fact, determined by the Minister of the day. Thus, the Minister was really responsible for the price levels.

Mr. Box: And I take it that the Minister at that time was a Socialist right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Blyton: That is not the point.

Mr. Box: When nationalisation took place there must have been a Socialist Minister in charge.

Mr. Blyton: If the hon. Member will read the Report of the Select Committee on the coal industry he will find references to the fact that on a number of occasions the Government refused to give permission for the industry to charge higher prices. That resulted in losses.

Mr. Box: Nevertheless, I take it that the Minister in 1947, at the time of nationalisation, was a Socialist right hon. Gentleman.
I came to the debate this afternoon in quite an optimistic frame of mind regarding the Coal Board, but I must say that the remarks I have heard from the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) have done a lot to depress me about the future of the coal industry. I hope that in South Wales we have a better story to tell. Although I am a Welsh hon. Member, representing a Welsh constituency, I have a certain amount of Scottish blood in my veins. I am ashamed to admit that I have never visited Scotland, although I must equally admit that the stories I have heard from hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies do net lead me to be overanxious to make amends about visiting Scotland.
As we have already heard, the Bill has two objects. One of them is innocuous and concerns a change at the end of the financial year. While it may seem innocuous to us, a good deal of reorganisation will be needed within the Board, so that the whole thing probably looks a lot easier than it is. The second object concerns short-term finance. I hope that as a result of the improving results we have heard about today the need for this short-term finance will be rather less in the future than it has been in the past. In any event, I would suggest that the Coal Board, in its present profit-making mood, is a far better risk for bank borrowing than perhaps it has been in the past.
I was interested in the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary about the increased investment in mechanisation, how the new capacity is likely to become available in the next few years and the need to remain competitive. During the Summer Recess I had a unique opportunity to pay my first visit to a coal mine. During the 3½ hours I spent underground I examined the various types of coal faces and saw something of the roof formations, particularly where roofs were inclined to cave in. I also crawled 50 yards up a 2 ft. 6 ins. coal seam, which was quite an experience in itself. I commend the opportunity,


if it comes to hon. Members on either side of the Hause, to visit a coal mine—[Laughter.] Despite the laughter of some hon. Members opposite I can assure them that there are quite a number of Welsh hon. Members in their ranks who have not yet visited a coal mine.
During my visit I saw what is probably one of the finest examples of automation in industry today; a £1 million washery which deals with hundreds of thousands of tons of anthracite. It not only washes and cleans the commodity, but separates it into various grades and sizes and, finally, sends it down a chute to waiting wagons for transportation to the merchants and customers. The whole operation is conducted by a mere handful of men.
While I recognise that these experiences are hardly sufficient to qualify me for membership of the National Union of Mineworkers, they gave me the rare opportunity of meeting a number of miners actually working on the job and I was able to see at first hand the conditions under which they work at the coal face. It is true that the mine I visited, in Cynheidre, South Wales, has the best tradition of modern mining. The horizon method is used and this is particularly appropriate for anthracite. The latest and most up-to-date machinery is available. In addition, the pit is equipped with the most modern pithead baths and showers and excellent canteen facilities.
It was surprising, and I say this as a layman and I am sure that all laymen would feel the same, that despite the greatly increased mechanisation going on in the coal industry there is still considerable scope for pick and shovel work. Such work is particularly appropriate owing to the geological problems in anthracite mining.
I thought that I might have found some hostility on my visit to Cynheidre, because twelve months or eighteen months earlier I had been rather severely critical of the geological preparatory work which was conducted prior to the expenditure of many millions of rounds on this project. Needless to say, I was entirely wrong. I was met with the utmost courtesy and good humour wherever I went—that good humour which is one of the nicer characteristics

of the South Wales miner. I was particularly interested to see at first hand the work of the present geological team working in the mine on the preparation of most detailed weekly reports. These show the conditions, the faults and fissures apparent in the mine and gradually make a case history of the characteristics of the colliery.
As each piece fits into the jigsaw, so gradually a picture takes shape and makes it rather easier for the geologists to find where the illusive seam is most likely to reappear when it disappears, as too often it does, either through the roof or through the floor. This, of course, is another occupational risk of anthracite mining.
I found particularly significant the obvious enthusiasm, keenness and good labour relations which existed between management and miners. The best reflection of this was shown in the fact that there has been a considerable increase in the output of this colliery over the last twelve months or so, and this has led to higher wages for the men working on the coal face. Although I recognise that conditions and relationships must vary at each pit, it is fair to conclude that the improved and record outputs per manshift achieved in the last eighteen months, coupled with the better training, show that there is a new spirit abroad, at least in some sections of the coalfield. This may not apply to Scotland but I believe sincerely that it applies to some parts of South Wales and I hope that these measures will play their part in bringing about greater improvements in the future.

Mr. J. Griffiths: First, because I am an old anthracite miner and, secondly, because Cynheidre is in my constituency, I am very glad that the hon. Member has been there. He made, as he was entitled to make, charges against and criticisms of the Coal Board a year or so ago which received wide publicity. I hope that the hon. Member's handsome tribute today will receive equal publicity.

Mr. Box: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was some publicity associated with my visit. Whilst not withdrawing my criticisms, I did suggest that any criticisms I made twelve months ago would certainly not apply today.
It is entirely in keeping with the modern conception of mining that an increasing number of miners are arriving to work today in their own cars. They put them in the car park, change into their working clothes, complete a shift—which is, admittedly, hard graft—and then emerge clean and refreshed from the modern up-to-date pithead baths and showers and take a meal in the nearby canteen.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Why not?

Mr. Box: I am all in favour of it, but customs die hard and I suppose that it is too much to hope for the conditions and good labour relations I have described to be achieved so easily in some of the older pits.
These improved conditions and labour relations much be achieved somehow if the industry is to move with the times and be in a strong position to meet and offset competition in the future from wherever it may come. The good results obtained during the past twelve to eighteen months have been obtained against the background of some recession in the country, with consequent reduction in demand, particularly from the steel industry. If these results can be maintained, the Coal Board can reasonably look forward to the future with some confidence.
The increased demand which must inevitably follow the recent measures by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the prospects of a still higher record output per man-shift in the future, should combine to place the industry in a strong position to meet this competition.
As the Budget draws nearer, I dare say that some of my hon. Friends and myself will be pressing the Chancellor to reduce the tax on fuel, because this has a striking effect on the cost of living, and, obviously, the Coal Board cannot expect the fuel tax to remain at its present high level for always. For the same reasons it may still be necessary to close some of the older collieries. Nobody wants to do this, but if they can only produce persistently low outputs per man-shift it is difficult to see any alternative.
Reference has been made to mobility. When I was in Cynheidre I met some

miners from Durham who had come to South Wales. Some had settled down very well and some not so well. There were others who had returned to Durham. Reference has been made to out-of-work miners in South Wales. I would only suggest that if miners are prepared to come from as far afield as Durham then South Wales miners might travel from different parts of South Wales if jobs are available for them in other areas.
I suggest that, in view of the probability of increased demand and output in the future, as we have more and more mechanisation, greater emphasis will have to be put on the sales side of the industry. I welcome for this reason the scheme announced by the Coal Board earlier this year, appointing approved coal merchants. Hon. Members may have seen the blue signs outside premises or on vehicles stating that the merchant is approved. This is a great improvement. It will help to maintain a higher standard of conduct. It will give better service to the consumer. In many cases it will provide the technical services which are so necessary today in advising the consumer of the best and most economical fuel to be used in his apparatus. I suggest that it is also essential for the general good will of the industry. Furthermore, it might help to reduce the stocks we have heard about this afternoon.
Coal is such a complicated and mysterious commodity that it is difficult for the consumer to decide whether or not he is obtaining value for his money. Fuel is now such an expensive item that it is incumbent upon the consumer to find out whether he is obtaining the right type and quality. I would ask how many hon. Members ever examine fuel delivery notes. I would go further and ask whether they would be very much wiser even if they saw them. There are now so many processed fuels selling at different prices and under a wide variety of names that some confusion is bound to result. There is a special responsibility on the Coal Board to maintain a high level of integrity in its dealings not only with the merchants, but also with the consumer. This responsibility can be put even higher, because this is a monopoly industry, owned by the general public. What we have to achieve is a balance between that aspect and the


commendable desire to make the industry pay.
The need for that has been emphasised in the recent Molony Report on Consumer Protection, published a few weeks ago, and in a special report on smokeless fuels resulting from work undertaken by the British Standards Institution and published last June. The findings of neither body are very encouraging. The British Standards Institution reported that there were unexplained variations in both the size and price of anthracite and that the ash and moisture content were much higher than they should have been. There was even one instance of a better fuel selling at a lower price. That may sound very good, but how many consumers would be aware of it?
I must, in fairness, say that the Coal Board disowned responsibility in that case, and the implication is that the fuel supplied under the name of anthracite was something inferior. That is very important to South Wales, in particular, because we produce the best anthracite in the world and are the largest anthracite producers in the United Kingdom. Therefore, if anyone in another area buys what is described as best Welsh anthracite we should do our utmost, and the Board should help, to make sure that the customer gets the right fuel.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman will probably agree that for domestic consumers of anthracite the Board runs a registration scheme with the intention of ensuring supplies of the right kind of fuel to those people. Apart from that, I cannot quite grasp how he can expect the Board to ensure that the supplier in a given locality is doing his job properly.

Mr. Box: I am unaware of the registration scheme to which the hon. Member refers, but the Board can be very influential in helping honest dealers —and this new scheme is a step in the right direction—to make sure that the customer gets what he pays for.
The B.S.I. report said that the moisture content in "Phurnacite" led to the conclusion that the fuel had deteriorated and, therefore, had absorbed an excessive amount of rain or other water during transit between colliery and customer. Whilst "Phurnacite" and"Gloco" were described as having the most consistent

quality, the report clearly shows that there are excessive variations in the quality of smokeless solid fuel.
Other conclusions in the report show just as unsatisfactory a state of affairs. For example, it states:
Many advertisements, instead of providing factual information, are specious and tend to mislead as to quality.
Again, referring to the Clean Air Act, it says:
We think that the inadequacies of some of the smokeless fuels (as delivered) may jeopardise the implementation of the Clean Air Act.
Then there is the statement:
We think the situation is so serious that it demands action.
The report states, in regard to quality:
It seemed that anything burnable might be called Best,' Hottest ' or ' Top Quality.' From the results one wonders whether these terms referred to the price rather than the fuel. In any event, price varied enormously, quality having little or no bearing.
A good deal of that is confirmed by the Molony Report on Consumer Protection, and both Reports should be taken very seriously. The Molony Committee said that the main problem of the consumer was that until a fuel was actually burning in the fireplace it was very difficult indeed to decide what its qualities and characteristics were. It also stated that up to 1960 the Board had spent about £60 million on mechanised cleaning plant, and it is only fair to say that, as a result, complaints of foreign matter in fuel supplies are diminishing.
On the other hand, the Committee pointed out that if a merchant were thoroughly dishonest, and chose to water coke—and I gather that coke absorbs water very easily—the customer might find himself buying water at the cost of coke, coke being a very expensive commodity. The Molony Committee feels that considerable abuse has occurred in this field. These are serious and disquieting allegations which, whilst they may be outside the direct responsibility of the Coal Board, indicate that there is substantial room for improvement on the sales side—

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: Surely the hon. Member is not desirous of again placing this liability on the Coal Board. It is time that the Government, which he supports, did something about that in several spheres.

Mr. Box: The Board is quite big enough and old enough to look after itself, and it can have considerable influence in this matter.
Any improvements on the sales side should include some independent, outside supervision of the Board's annual repricing and regrading review. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are involved in that review, and it would be in the best interests of both the Board and the consumer to have such independent supervision.
There is no doubt that much of the confusion I have described results from what can only be called uninformed buying by the consumer and indifferent selling by the merchant. A good deal of that could be eliminated if the consumer were to keep a close eye on the situation. I am sure that many consumers are unaware of the agreement between the Board and the merchants whereby, if a customer complains about the quality of the fuel supplied, the dealer is obliged to investigate the complaint very carefully and, if the complaint is found to be justified, to replace the fuel without cost. The Board might consider it advisable to give further publicity to that agreement. That would be a step towards preventing inequalities, injustices and unfairness between merchant and consumer.
With those reservations, I welcome this opportunity to support the Bill. I believe that the coal industry is on the up and up. That certainly applies to many parts of South Wales, and I hope that a great deal of the enthusiasm and the good relations I found in the pit I visited will spread throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. If those things can be maintained and developed, I see every prospect of increasing prosperity in the coal industry in the future.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Charles Grey: I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) will forgive me if I do not follow him. I will only comment on his presumption in suggesting that, because he visited one coal mine on one day, we, too, should visit one and get all the knowledge he gained. Many of us have worked in the coal mines for nearly thirty years, and know nearly all there is to know about the work. If the hon. Member cared to work down a pit, many

of his views might become very different from those that he has expressed.
I am glad that he paid tribute to a nationalised industry, which is more than anyone else on that side has done——

Mr. Nabarro: I have.

Mr. Grey: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has had his fun and we do not want any more laughter when we are discussing a serious subject.
It is not my intention to go into all the ramifications of the activities of the Coal Board, but there are one or two specific items which I should like to mention. I wish to pay tribute to the National Coal Board for all it has done. Tracing the years back, one can truthfully say that the Board is now an institution which is part of our economic life which we cannot do without. We should take this opportunity of paying great tribute to the Board, together with the miners who work for it. Not once has there been any comment from the benches opposite about the work of the miners, who, along with the Board, should be given great credit for what they have done.
At one time, the Coal Board was the subject of great abuse. It became a well-known subject for music-hall jokes. Hon. Members opposite spoke contemptuously about the Board's officials. All that has changed, however. The Board has won through and has reached the stage when it can fairly claim to have done a pretty good job, even in spite of the Government.
What are the facts? Production this year has increased by 6½ million tons. The reason for this is higher productivity. It must be borne in mind that there are 20,000 fewer men in the industry, and this in itself is an achievement. At the coal face, output per man shift is 9 per cent. higher than last year. The industry generally has made good progress and I understand that the increased productivity is a record. We cannot allow these things to slip by without noticing them and the House should pass a vote of commendation to the Board and to the miners for these achievements.
We must, however, try to reach a position in which the mining industry is allowed to develop itself to its full and proper capacity. At the moment it is not allowed to do so, for two reasons. First, if the industry is to develop properly and


fully, an expanding economy is essential. Secondly, there must be a national coordinated fuel policy covering electricity generating stations, coal distribution, oil, atomic energy and the rest. All these factors have to be considered.
There is not much need for me to prove the validity of my point that an expanding economy is necessary. Time and time again during the last four years, we on this side of the House have stressed in all our economic debates how great is the need for an expanding economy. Most people should know this, but it appears that the Government have not realised it yet. In the opinion of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, an expanding economy is the only way to cure our serious unemployment position. In the position in which we find ourselves, the Government are not able to expand the economy to allow the coal industry to play its full part. The only people who do not realise this are the Government.
I shall deal with only one aspect of the desirability of having a national coordinated fuel policy, to which reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). When any of us get down to thinking about it, can we really say that we are right in basing our economy so largely on oil, which has to be imported from abroad? The Suez fiasco should have taught us the lesson of that. As we all know, at the suggestion of political trouble, the pipelines are cut, the sea routes blocked and the oil wells no longer operate. Therefore, by ever-increasing importation of oil we place foreign fingers around Britain's economic windpipe.
In doing anything like that, we place the country at a disadvantage, and we do so when we know full well that under our own countryside we have all the coal resources that we need.

Mr. Kershaw: Oil now provides about 30 per cent. of our energy requirements. What does the hon. Member regard as the safe proportion to be imported?

Mr. Grey: It is for that reason that I am asking the Government to prepare a plan to show our needs, which they are not doing. Oil is coming in wholesale

on a free-for-all basis. The hon. Member should ask his Government to produce a plan to show where oil fits in. To rely solely upon oil and to fasten our economy to it is dangerous in view of events in the Yemen and what may happen in the Middle East.
We have the coal right beneath our feet. We have miners who go down the mines and work in conditions of extreme danger, of which the general public have not the slightest conception, although possibly the hon. Member for Cardiff, North now realises how difficult the work is. The general public, however, do not understand. The miners are prepared to dig the coal as long as they get an opportunity to do so. The miners want to work in our own coal fields and to make their contribution to the economy of the country. They will do it if they are given security of employment in their industry.
When miners dig our own coal in our own country, all the money that is earned goes into our pockets and helps the welfare of British people. I hope, therefore, that when the Minister and the Government consider a national fuel policy, they will consider these points concerning oil in addition to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton. We cannot, and we dare not, place too much reliance upon oil. We must give an opportunity to get as much coal as we can, because I am certain that if given the opportunity the National Coal Board will play its full part.
I wish to refer briefly to a local matter, the siting of a power station in the north of England. I am glad that the Minister has returned to the Chamber. I hope that he has enjoyed his food and will enjoy what I am about to say so much that he will grant my request. All of us on this side, including, for example, my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Pentland) and Houghtonle-Spring (Mr. Blyton) and others, were delighted when we thought that we would be having a power station in County Durham. The Government, however, are moody; they never know what they will do next. They come out with all kinds of surprises and with some shrewd shocks. Our shock came when


we were told that a power station would not be built.
I believe that such a decision is completely crazy. We cannot understand it. There are any number of facts to put to the Minister that would prove that a power station in Durham would be a great benefit. A power station built somewhere in the County of Durham, wherever the site may be, with a capacity of about 2,000 megawatt, would consume some 5 million tons of coal per year. It would keep in employment between 10,000 and 12,000 men. But the benefit would not stop there. The benefit would extend because there would be the social effect of keeping these men in employment. It would spread out to the shopkeepers and other services in the mining community. I estimate that if a power station were put in Durham the full effect would spread out to a total of 30,000 people and, maybe, even more. I should have thought that that was a pretty good reason why a power station should be put there.
There are, in fact, three reasons. A power station in Durham would be the easiest and cheapest form of providing employment. I say that because we have serious unemployment in the North-East which does not relate only to miners. We have other people unemployed as well. Recently we had a statement from the Board of Trade that there were to be five factories built in Durham. Each factory would employ about 200 people and the total employed would therefore be 1,000 people. We want all these. The President of the Board of Trade did us a good turn by saying that he was going to do this. But if the factories are built that is not the end, because tenants will have to be found for them. The mere building of the factories could be just a piece of political window-dressing. We have to have employment that is suitable to the people. A power station would provide employment without any bother at all.
I repeat that it is the cheapest form of providing employment. But the power station must be planned now. The decision must be made very shortly, otherwise the manpower will run down and once it has been dispersed it will never be regained. I know that there is an argument, and perhaps the Minis-

ter may use it, that the coal might have to be a little dearer. The coal from Durham for a power station, I understand, would be sold on the same basis as East Midland coal. I think that there would be a coal field addition of 5s. a ton. But the cost of the transport of Durham coal to the power station could be minimised to take care of this extra cost. The transport cost would level out the 5s. a ton extra.
My final point—this is very important and would please the hon. Member for Kidderminster—is that there would be no further capital investment needed in our Durham colliery to provide the tonnage of coal that a power station would require.
Those are the three factors which the right hon. Gentleman ought to take into consideration. I think that, having these things on our mind and this knowledge, it would be complete nonsense not to build this power station. This decision to cut back and not to build a power station in Durham is still allowing the transfer scheme to exist so that men are being moved away from Durham. I am not saying that a transfer scheme should not take place in every case, but I believe that there are 10,000 men in Durham now who should stay there—that is the point that I am making—and there are many miners who have left Durham who would not have left had they known, or been assured, that a power station would be built.
Dulling the last two years 400 men have left Bowburn colliery in my constituency. My hon. Frend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) has lost men in his area and is continuing to do so. It is tragic when these redundancies take place. But one blessing is that we have such marvellous employers in the National Coal Board. I pay tribute to them because they are carrying out these transfer schemes in such a way that many people have been placed in employment and found themselves happy and contented. I want to say about the Dunham Division of the National Coal Board that no set of employers anywhere could have bettered anything that they have done. I think that hon. Members should take their hats off to them for doing a very difficult job.
It is not an easy task to tell miners that if they want a job they will have to


go to Yorkshire or somewhere else; that they will have 'to dig up their roots. The National Coal Board, in consultation with the trade unions, has done this job remarkably well. The amount of good will that has been exercised on all sides is amazing, and these schemes have been carried out 'with the minimum of 'trouble. I believe that, bearing in mind these things, if a power station were decided upon in Durham this drift could be halted and the men could be kept there. It only needs the Minister to say, "Yes, there can be a power station in Durham," and a decision must be made very shortly.
The mining industry has now been under social ownership for fourteen years. It has been one phase of steady progress. The N.C.B. and the miners have done a remarkably good job. I believe that they would keep on doing it if only they had a Government that would see that they had a fair chance to carry out their own work in a way that would give them every kind of confidence.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: It may seem strange that a Member for an agricultural constituency in the far North who has not one miner in his constituency, should take part in the debate, but, in fact, it is not strange, because I spent the greater part of my life in the south of Scotland, in a mining district. I know the Scottish miners and their position, and anything which affects them must be a matter of concern to me.
I understand their anxiety at the reorganisation going on in Scotland, but I think that many of them will understand only too well that it must take place. Reorganisation is nothing new. It has been going on ever since I can remember, and by and large the results have been good. Most mining people will realise the truth of what the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well) said about working uneconomic pits. Any miner knows that to work such a pit is merely a matter of digging holes and filling them up again, doing no good to anybody.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to collaborate as closely as possible with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in easing

the reorganisation process as much as possible, particularly in central Scotland. He should bear in mind that, if miners must be moved from one coalfield to another, their families must go with them, and that, in addition to providing alternative employment for the miners, it is essential to provide it for their wives and daughters as well.
But that is not the prime reason for my intervention. I am very concerned about a new process introduced by my right hon. Friend a year ago. He announced that he intended to introduce differential increases in prices between different parts of the United Kingdom. Hitherto, all increases in coal prices had been uniform throughout the country, but this time he made bigger increases in Scotland and the north-west of England than in the rest of the country.
If the coal industry in central Scotland and the north-west of England were in a bad way, the worst way to counter the situation was by increasing the price of coal to a higher extent in those parts of the country than in others. Not only was the industry itself harmed, but there was a snowball effect throughout other industries as well. This applied particularly harshly in my constituency, where paper-making is a principal industry. I am told by the paper-makers there that the effect of the differential increase at that time was to put up their costs by not less than 4 per cent. over their competitors in England.
Aberdeen and district are very far North and far from the major centres of population. The margin on which paper-makers and other industrialists work is very narrow and a 4 per cent. increase in costs may make all the difference between profit and loss. The effect of this increase has been serious and I understand that there is a possibility that expansion of paper-making in the far North may not take place if the difference in the price of the coal in the north of Scotland compared with the price in England remains as high as it is.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look at this question of the margin which he is taking away from these industries by increasing the price of coal in Scotland to a greater extent than in England. It is a serious matter for industry throughout Scotland, particularly the North.
The traditional source of house coal in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland has not been the Scottish, but the English coalfields. Nevertheless, the price for house coal in the North-East was put up by £1 a ton as against 10s. a ton in England. The coal merchants in Aberdeen district, applying to the customary source of supply in the northeast of England, found that the price of coal for supply in Scotland was to be increased not by 10s. a ton, which was to be the normal increase in price for coal from Northumberland and Durham in other parts of the country, but by £1 a ton.
This meant great 'hardship to people in the far north of Scotland, who were paying higher prices than people in other parts of the country which were more accessible from the coalfields. The unfortunate thing is that this vast monolithic monopoly of the Coal Board was not content with increasing prices, laying down the law and making things difficult for industrialists generally. To all intents and purposes, the Board forbade the import of coal from continental countries and America to industrialists in the North. This was a very great hardship and should be reconsidered by my right hon. Friend, because ports like Aberdeen are, in practical terms, far nearer to other coalfields than they are to that of central Scotland because they can obtain coal from them much more easily.

Miss Margaret Herbison: The hon. Gentleman has made an important suggestion to the Minister of Power, to allow coal from America or the Continent to come in for the north of Scotland. Will he also, in our next agricultural debate, make the same plea to the Secretary of State for Scotland to take away all the safeguards that the farmers have in the North?

Mr. Hendry: This is not an agricultural debate and I would be out of order if I answered the hon. Lady's question. But if she cares to sit through the agricultural debate tomorrow I may be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and then I will give her the answer.
Apart from the import of coal from America or the Continent, there is

always the possibility of getting industrial coal from the north-east of England. There are large stocks of coal which I believe we import into Aberdeen with very much less trouble than from central Scottish coalfields. But in view of the policy laid down by my right hon. Friend a year ago again we come up against monopoly.
Yet the Coal Board is not a completely monolithic monopoly, because a certain number of pits are under private enterprise. It is extremely interesting to see how they compare with the nationalised industry. It is difficult to get figures, but I got some from the Board today. I find that output from these licensed mines in 1961 was no less than 2¼ million tons in round figures, which is quite a sizeable proportion of our coal output. The number employed in these mines was 4,799 and output per man over the years was on average 474 tons. That compares very favourably with output from the Board's own mines, where the average output in 1960 was 278 tons per man employed in the industry.
Thus, these little mines—it may be that they are working in different conditions—are doing very well. They have a good output and it is obvious that the men working them would not be doing so except at a profit. In almost every case these mines are owned and worked by working miners. They know the job and are doing it remarkably well, but, unfortunately, they are not doing as good a job as they otherwise could. That is because for some reason that the Coal Board sets a target figure for these small mines, and each is given a quota beyond which it may not go. Hon. Members opposite who represent mining constituencies, especially in Wales, will know something about this system.
This seems to be an extremely foolish and short-sighted policy on the part of the Coal Board. For a number of years total output has been fixed at 2¼ million tons, although I am told by miners working these mines that they could produce much more more profitably.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Member has quoted Coal Board figures about the number of men employed in licensed mines and the amount of coal they produce. Has he not also inquired into the


conditions of the men who work in some of these licensed mines—not all of them, as I know through having some in my constituency? Do they have the same safety precautions as those enforced by the Coal Board? I could list many things, and I hope that the hon. Member will inquire into those, too.

Mr. Hendry: The hon. Lady has many of these mines in her constituency and I have had the privilege of seeing some of them, as she well knows. I have had a close connection with a number of small licensed mines in other constituencies. At one time I had a considerable interest in some of these small mines, although I no longer have. As the hon. Lady well knows, the conditions in these mines are exactly the same as those in the bigger mines run by the Coal Board. They are operated under the same legislation and are inspected by the same inspectors of mines as the mines run by the Board.

Mr. A. Roberts: I have had to inspect several of these mines. The difference between them and the Coal Board mines is that the small licensed mines are more unpleasant. Invariably, they are near to the surface and, consequently, are wet. However, they all come under the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954.

Mr. Hendry: Some may be wet and unpleasant to work in, but nobody forces men to work in these mines. I think that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) will agree that many of the men who do so work there of their own free will as a natural choice.

Miss Herbison: Not at all.

Mr. Hendry: That is my experience. They are doing a good job. I do not contend that they should get any advantage over the Coal Board, but I think that they could do a better job if only the Board would take a less short-sighted policy towards them and would increase to the maximum the amount they could produce, always having regard to the possibility of accumulated stocks of unsaleable coal, although that is not a valid argument because privately-owned mines will not produce stocks of unsaleable coal if they can avoid doing so.
These mines are run under the same conditions as Coal Board mines and are inspected and are subject to wage and

price control in the same way. The only difference is that they may have pithead customers. I have been such a customer myself and I have had very good service. They have a part to play in the industry and they should be allowed to play it without unnecessary restrictions.
I join with all those who have said that the Coal Board has recently done an extremely good job. The Bill will help it to continue to do a very good job, and for that reason I support it. However, I ask my right hon. Friend to keep in mind, when considering future policy, that he should have regard to the families, especially the daughters, of miners who are transferred from one pit to another; that in fixing increases in prices he should have regard to the effect on industry generally, especially in those parts of the United Kingdom like Scotland and the north-east of England where industry is badly required and where increases in the price of coal beyond those in other parts of the United Kingdom may have serious repercussions on industry generally; and lastly, that he should do what he can through the Coal Board to encourage private enterprise in the part it has to play in coal mining.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I welcome the Bill because it gives us an opportunity to talk about the coal mining industry. I should like to follow what the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) said about the small mines, because that is an interesting topic, but I think that I will leave it where it is because it has been explained that these mines come under the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954. They have a part to play and most of them work coal which it would not be profitable for the National Coal Board to work.
However, I want to deal with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). It is all very well for him to dance about on the benches opposite and say what a wonderful job has been done since the appointment of Lord Robens. Lord Robens is quite an able man and I do not want to denigrate his work, but it is wrong to suppose that it is only since he came into office that the Coal Board has started to look up.
I can remember a previous Minister of Power saying what a dynamic personality was Sir James Bowman, who was recommended by Dr. Fleck. I can also remember the late Sir Hubert Houldsworth. Both those chairmen of the Coal Board had gigantic tasks. Anyone conversant with the mining industry knows that coal production is not a matter of putting down a cement bed, putting machines on it and operating them. Sometimes it takes eighteen months to drive across drifts in a coalmine. It sometimes takes two years to reach the kind of seam required. Only now are we starting to get the benefits of the admirable work which has been done by previous Coal Board chairmen, and that should be fully understood.
While I welcome the efforts of the present chairman, I must point out that those inside the industry have been making their efforts since the industry was nationalised. Coming as I do from the coal fields, I would say that 98 per cent. of the men in the industry do not know who the chairman of the National Coal Board is, but they are all doing a job. Their interest is in doing a good job and in getting good wages.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) referred to his visit to a coal mine and spoke of the number of cars he had seen in the pit yard. It may seem that all is well in the industry, but he should clearly understand that there are thousands of mineworkers whose wages are just over £10 a week, and that at a time when Ford's can pay £11 a week for men not to work. We must bring home to the Minister the need for some revision in the pay of men receiving these meagre wages. They are making efforts on behalf of the industry and if their pits close down, they often have nowhere else to go, especially when they are over 45. I hope that the Minister will remember the wonderful behaviour and discipline of the National Union of Mineworkers, the colliery managers and others connected with the industry. Those connected with the mining industry have for years been striving to make this an industry which can be respected, and I am pleased to say that since nationalisation we have succeeded in doing that.
There has been a lot of talk about finance. It has been said that a surplus

should be called a profit. We ought to bear in mind the fact that since nationalisation there has been an operating surplus, or profit, of more than £230 million. The millstone round the industry's neck has been the rate of interest charges, which has continued to rise. It has risen from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. This is something over which the industry has had no control. The Government decided to put up interest rates, and the industry, as has been said, had to provide coal almost as a public service. In addition, we must remember what has been said many times during debates on the coal industry—and this was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) whose profundity of understanding on this issue is deeper than mine—that the import of American coal cost the Board £70 million.
When we on this side of the House argued that the price of coal should find its own level, the Treasury said that the Government had fixed the price and the Board therefore had to adhere to it. It is easy to say now, as some hon. Members have said, that the industry must work for a profit, that it must work on a commercial basis. The industry has passed through various vicissitudes, and I am delighted that through the efforts of those in the industry we are now beginning to turn the corner. In 1955 we were told of the golden prospects for the mining industry. Unfortunately, almost immediately there was a recession which lasted from 1956 to 1961.
Reference has also been made to the stocking of coal. Hon. Members should consider the result of that policy. It meant that men were kept off public benefits. If miners had been put out of work they would have drawn unemployment benefit. By keeping them at work millions of pounds of public money were saved. This policy of keeping men at work meant a charge against the industry, and the Government failed to take cognisance of that fact. If the Government had offered financial assistance, this would have been greatly appreciated.
I wonder what would have happened if the mines had been privately owned. Look at what happened to the cotton industry. It was advised by the Government to contract, and then what did the Government do? They paid £30 million by way of compensation. No such


compensation has been given to the Board. I say again, therefore, that I wonder what would have happened had the mines been privately owned.

Mr. Hendry: If a mine had been privately owned, it would have gone bankrupt and many people would have been out of a job, because such a mine would not have been able to borrow from the Government as the National Coal Board has been able to do.

Mr. Roberts: I do not know whether a private mine would have gone bankrupt or not. I remember that between 1920 and 1926 coal owners received a subsidy. Some of the money that was provided was really wasted. Time and again—particularly between 1956 and 1961—thon. Gentlemen opposite have pilloried the Board, and that is why I say that we need a measure of sympathy on this issue.
Everyone, including the National Union of Mineworkers, is in favour of progress in the industry. Those in the industry are in favour of increased mechanisation, and I am speaking now as a mining engineer whose duty it was to inspect more than thirty pits. We have always been in favour of progress. We realise that many a false step can be made by standing still. We are not against the closing of uneconomic mines, but it must be remembered that grave social consequences can follow from such a policy.
It is easy to say, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that some pits will have to close and that the men will have to be found other jobs, but it is not possible to find jobs for men over 45, for the simple reason that nobody wants them. The Minister should realise that even in the prolific coalfields of Yorkshire some mines are exhausted, and in my consituency, which has one of the largest new pits in Europe, some mines are to be closed, and it will not be possible to provide alternative work for the men who become redundant. As a result of these closures, between 200 and 300 men over 45 will become redundant. Where else can they find work? It is for this reason that I support the plea made to the Minister that there should be better co-ordination between him and the President of the Board of Trade.
It is wrong to wait until the men actually become unemployed. There should be a greater measure of planning and co-ordination between the two Departments to which I have referred to ensure that these men are found alternative employment. I am not dealing with percentages of unemployment. If one man is unemployed he thinks about himself and looks around to see whether he can find other work. If he has a moderate-sized family, his position can be rather tragic. My heart goes out to anyone who finds himself in such a situation, and that is why I think that we ought to work together to see whether we can solve the problem of men becoming unemployed.
I support the plea that has been made for the building of power stations. I agree that one should go to Scotland and one to the North-East. I am not so much troubled about those power stations which are to be built near oil refineries. Ours is an expanding economy. If production increases, there will be a demand for more power, and there is no reason why the demand for coal should decrease.
It has often been said that by 1965 there would be parity between coal-fired generating stations and those operating under nuclear power. Progress to date, however, proves once again that the Government have been wrong in their calculations, because nuclear power stations will not achieve parity with the traditional power stations until at least 1975. We were told that the last traditional power station would be put down in 1965, and I hope that the Government will now be prepared to admit that their calculations were wrong.
I believe that there is a great future for the coal industry, provided we have a proper fuel plan. There is a need for gas, electricity, and to some extent oil, and I conclude on this point. For the past few weeks the Minister has been silent about the Lurgi plant. Together with the chairman of the National Coal Board I saw the Lurgi plant in operation in Australia. Out there they were using an inferior type of coal with a high water content, but nevertheless the plant was working successfully. We have two pilot Lurgi plants, one in the Midlands and one in Scotland. We are anxious to know whether these pilot schemes are


proving a success. We hope that they will. I think that it would be a far better proposition if we could develop along those lines and thus avoid the embarrassment of tremendous quantities of coke which cannot be used. Again, if we use the Lurgi plants, it will not be necessary to import liquid methane. I hope that we shall have some news about these plants.
The Bill has given us a wonderful opportunity to say something about the industry. The Minister will appreciate that those who are connected with it are always ready to play their part. I hope that he will do something about the promise made by the Coal Board a short time ago, that if output per man-shift rose to 30 cwt. per shift the question of a seven-hour day would be considered. I believe that in the past few weeks the output has risen to ()NTT 30 cwt. per man-shift and there is a possibility that in the near future the figure agreed to between the Coal Board and the N.U.M. will be reached. As a gesture to the industry, and without arguing about the matter, the Coal Board should say, "The industry is healthy, and we wish to keep it healthy. We have the good will of the men, and we wish to keep that good will. They can have a seven-hour day."
I entered the mines when I was 14 years of age, and we had a seven-hour day until 1926. Here we are, thirty-six years later, and the miners are working a seven-and-a-half-hour day. I trust that the Minister will have the privilege and honour of saying that we can revert to the position that we were in before 1926.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his sympathetic references to the tragic disaster that took place recently at the Barony Colliery, in South Ayrshire—my constituency. This was an unexpected blow, in an area where several other small collieries were doomed to close under the pit closures plan. The disaster took place in a quite unexpected area, and put out of action a very large colliery from which the National Coal Board estimated that it would get a regular supply of coal for many years. There have been all kinds of mining accidents, but this was a rather strange one. It was due to the

collapse of one of the shafts, by the caving in of the ground around the shaft in a way that nobody ever imagined possible. A great effort was made to deal with this situation, in which four miners lost their lives. They quite literally lost their lives trying to save the pit and the work of their comrades.
This mining area now faces a difficult problem, which, as the Minister has said, the Coal Board is coping with as promptly as it can. But it is estimated that the minimum time that must elapse before the pit can be brought into operation again is two years. When the plans are made and the engineers report the Board may have to consider the relative cost either of building a new shaft or constructing an entrance from another colliery. Some financial advisers may think that it would make a difference whether the area was goin2, to show a profit or a loss, but I submit that in this case a long-term view should be taken. The Board should not be encouraged or tempted in any way to postpone a decision or cut down expenditure.
I acknowledge the interest taken by Lord Robens in this matter. The Board knows that a vast supply of coal is available in this area. It is estimated that millions of tons still remain to be won from this colliery, providing employment for the next thirty or even fifty years, if access can be gained to it.
It is clear that while the preparatory work is being undertaken this community will be faced with a grave social problem. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who has so clearly explained the prospects of this locality during this period. I realise that we have received sympathy, but I want to know whether sympathy is to be expressed in a practical manner, by every possible effort being made to absorb the labour of these men, until, we hope, they can get back into the colliery again.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) hoped that the Minister would keep in touch with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I also expressed that hope, and I hope that he will also have consultations with the President of the Board of Trade. The Secretary of State could do a great deal by pushing forward the necessary works of reconstruction—works which are


necessary in the social interests of this community, on roads, water supplies, land reclamation, and even forestry.
There are many schemes which, if the Secretary of State for Scotland cooperates with the President of the Board of Trade, will enable this labour force to be mantained, so that the people will net drift away as they may do if it appears to them that nothing is going to be done for them. These people have been brought up in this locality. They are skilled men, who know the pit. Their lives have been very closely associated with it. It would be an industrial mistake and a human tragedy if they were allowed to drift away so that, when the colliery was ready to be opened, the demand for skilled labour could not be met.
This colliery has had a great record. There have been no difficulties in industrial relations. The number of strikes has been very small. Lord Robens has said that the colliery did not deserve this, and neither did the community. In those circumstances I hope that the Secretary of State will co-operate and help the progressive local authority to go ahead with schemes of work which will help to keep together this necessary labour force. I also hope that the President of the Board of Trade will continue to help in establishing alternative industries. We have had some news of a factory being provided in that area, but, in the reply to a Question which I received from the President of the Board of Trade today, I was told that the area of the factory would be 15,000 sq. ft. I cannot conceive of that being a factory that will solve what was the serious unemployment problem before the Barony tragedy came upon us.
I therefore hope that in Ayrshire we shall get not one small factory, but something like the industrial estates which were so beneficial to South Wales, or a trading estate, like Treforest, which has been the means of employing so many miners who were unemployed in South Wales. This problem of the Barony is the problem of the whole of the industrial and mining areas of Scotland. We want a great effort to be made to see that all the Ministries are working together so that industry may continue in this part of Ayrshire. I suggest that far more attention will have

to be devoted to efforts of this kind than have been made hitherto. There is a great need for urgency, or imagination and for planning ahead in order to keep this coalfield going and to employ those who are now unemployed through no fault of their own.
We have had interesting interventions in the debate today, including one from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). He has suddenly become complimentary to the Coal Board, because he says it is now making a profit. Who knows? The time may come when we may have an opportunity of examining a nationalised carpet-making industry, and then we shall be able to look into it to see exactly how much profit is being made, how efficiently it has been run and how much profit has been taken out of the industry in the past. I am not so sure that the hon. Gentleman would be so enthusiastic about Dr. Beeching then, especially if the latter tries to solve the problem of cutting down expenditure on the railways by removing the carpets from the first-class carriages.
I am very sorry indeed that the Minister has lost the services of such an able assistant as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George), who spoke from the Dispatch Box recently. The hon. Member was a very hardworking Minister and one with very great experience, and I say that because I have known him for over thirty years. He was a colliery manager in my area, and was at one time my political opponent. The hon. Gentleman is unique in his knowledge of the mining industry, because I can think of no other instance in our political history in which a man who had started work in a coal mine actually appeared on the Front Bench in this House under a Conservative Government. This was a great asset to the Minister of Power, because I know that the hon. Gentleman's idea of a holiday was to spend it visiting coal mines.
As one who has had the experience of the hon. Gentleman's company on a good many of these expeditions. I know how useful he was to the Ministry in a technical sense, and the experience, energy and conscientiousness which he devoted to his work in the Department. I believe that there is a general feeling


of regret, especially among coal miners—I am not at all disparaging the Minister—that the hon. Member for Pollok has had to discontinue his work at the Ministry because of ill-health. We hope that he will be able to be back with us and resume his duties in the House as soon as possible.
We have heard a good deal today about mining as an industry. I remember that, when I first stood as a candidate for Parliament, the late Bernard Shaw wrote to me about the affairs of the coal industry, and said, "Coal mining is not an industry; it is an atrocity." There is a good deal in that. Whenever I go down a coal mine, I watch the men working away in the bowels of the earth, and I wonder how men could ever be persuaded to work in mines. Today, the demand in the area of which I speak is for the reopening of the Barony Colliery. There is more affection for the Barony pit than there has been in my memory for the last thirty years.
None of us takes a romantic view of coal mining, and we should all be very glad if we could see this industry rendered unnecessary, because we were able to get our fuel and power from some other and more civilised source, but, while it is still there, we have to do our utmost to see that conditions are established which will satisfy the consciences of all of us.
Unfortunately, during my time as Member of Parliament for South Ayrshire, I have had to be at pitheads following three rather big pit disasters. There was the one at Kames, and the recent one at the Barony, but the one I remember most was the Knockshinnoch Colliery disaster in New Cumnock, a pit now doomed to be closed if the Coal Board's plan materialises. There are men who are thinking that it will be a tragedy when Knockshinnoch closes down. I remember very vividly those very tragic days when we waited at the pithead to find out whether the rescue team underneath were able to get to the men endangered on the other side of a barrier of gas and coal.
We were waiting in the colliery offices—a group of variously assorted people from different walks of life, watching the map of the workings below and wondering whether the rescue party was work-

ing its way through foul gas and old workings to get at the men who were trapped. I am very glad to say that its efforts were very largely successful. I remember that, as we sat there, hardly anyone exchanged a word, because we knew how dangerous it was and how much hung on the efforts of the men in the rescue party. There were men sitting round the table who were associated with all branches of the mining industry. There was Lord Balfour, then chairman of the Coal Board, Arthur Horner, secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, Pearson, the secretary of the Scottish Mineworkers' Union, and Abe Moffatt; and we had the experienced managers and technical people from all around.
There they sat, looking at the map on the table, and hardly a word was exchanged. We were all watching the red arrows which pointed the way for the men of the rescue party. Ultimately, came the great news—the almost miraculous news—that this astounding rescue effort in mining history had been successful. I remember seeing those men come up to the pithead, scrambling into the light of day, where, once more, they knew normal life again. All the arrows were pointing the same way. All the energy, brains and experience and all the human feeling was bent on one object.
In one sense we have the same problem in that area today. From all walks of life people interested in the social welfare of the district are all wondering what can come of their energies. Ultimately, can this community be saved? Will the arrows point the right way and can we save the economic life of that pit as we saved those men who, at one time, we thought were doomed to die in the darkness?
I ask the Minister for all the co-ordination possible, so that this community may be urged to keep together. If finance is needed by the local authorities, let them be given it willingly and without hesitation. Above all, let the right hon. Gentleman see to it that there is alternative industry. If this is done there will be a response from this coal mining community to that larger community which depends on the industry and on the people who have given of their best for this country and for the generation in which they live.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Harper: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) estimated that the manpower needed to meet future requirements in the coal industry would amount to 500,000 men. The present manpower figure is 540,600 and so the hon. Gentleman would chop off 40,600 men from that figure. I wish it were possible that the hon. Member for Kidderminster could be one of the workmen who will have to work in the mines. The hon. Gentleman fails to realise that the increased productivity in the industry has been achieved by real hard work and by mechanisation so that the miners have been able to produce at a figure, never before achieved in the industry, amounting to over 32 cwt. per man shift.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster eulogised the chairman of the National Coal Board, Lord Robens, and made it appear that by a wave of his magic wand Lord Robens had changed the Coal Board's deficit into a profit. I do not know what his lordship will think when he reads that statement. I do know what the workmen in the industry will think. They will wonder what part they have been playing. I wish to emphasise that the coal industry has always shown a profit, and I shall prove that statement.
This Bill makes two recommendations. First, it is designed to provide for a temporary deficit which may arise during the coming twelve months and it empowers the Minister to act as a banker, as it were, and to be the source from which the Board may borrow money, if necessary, up to a maximum of £20 million. By the provisions in Clause 2 there is an alteration in the Coal Board's financial year. I cannot understand why that should be necessary. I do not object to the alteration and if the Board can operate at a profit by reason of an alteration in a financial year from December to March, I do not think there will be any objection from hon. Members on this side of the House. The Minister said that the Bill was a simple Measure. Later he said that it was an innocuous Measure and I am beginning to wonder what sort of a Bill it really is.
After the industry was nationalised in 1947, and during the fifteen years which have ensued since that time it has made an operating surplus of

£223,700,000. After that figure has been manipulated and an interest repayment made, amounting to £345 million, there is left a total deficit of £92·8 million. That figure represents less than 1 per cent. of the Board's annual turnover and so it is not as high as it might appear.
In addition the Board has borrowed £643 million, of which £37 million has been repaid. This money was to be used to revitalise the industry and, speaking as the newest recruit to this House from the Yorkshire coal fields where I spent thirty-four years working underground, I am able to say that this money was used for the provision of plant and machinery as working capital and for financing stocks, about which I shall have a word to say later. Originally the money was borrowed at an interest rate of 2½ per cent. But, owing to Government policy, the interest rate rose to 5½ per cent. thus adding to the burden which the Board had to bear.
Through all these years the Board has been operating on a system of "heads you win, tails I lose". That applies to the coal industry more than to any other industry whether nationalised or not. In the period from 1947 to 1956 the industry was recognised as a public service and the ever-growing demand for coal made things easy. First the Labour Government and then successive Tory Governments implored the Board to produce as much coal as possible. It was a case of coal at any price. Even under those circumstances our coal was £2 a ton cheaper than West European coal and cheaper, after freight charges had been paid, than American coal. The Board was instructed by the Minister to import coal for which it had to pay. That cost us £70 million. When I say "us" I speak as a man in the industry.
During the second period, from 1957 to 1962, demand fell, owing to a combination of circumstances, and the plan prepared by the Coal Board and the Minister in 1956 had to be modified. It had been said that 240 million tons of coal would be needed in the years ahead. After we had gone to a lot of trouble over borrowing money and making a plan to secure this amount, it was discovered that there was not a sufficient demand and the amount was reduced to


200 million tons. But the financial and other burdens still had to be borne with this reduced tonnage. A simple analogy to explain the situation is provided by imagining that British Railway bought an engine sufficiently large, and strong enough to pull a hundred wagons of coal and paid £X,000's for it, only to discover that the engine would never be called on to pull more than fifty wagons. British Railways would still have to pay for this big engine to do only half the job.
That is the position the Coal Board was in. The N.C.B. deficit, which in the ultimate gives rise to a Bill such as this, would not have been necessary if a proper policy had been carried out. It is directly attributed to the Minister's policy and not to lack of efficiency on the part of the Coal Board or anyone working in the industry. In the second period the Coal Board has no reserves and there was no transitional period to tide it over or give a breathing space in which it could become competitive.
I remind the House that we are not asking that the Board should borrow money interest-free, but we feel that some of the liabilities due to past neglect should be written off Vast sums were needed to revitalise the industry and there was the unfair nature of fixed interest charges on the industry's reduced capacity. During the first eight years after nationalization, the N.C.B. was a monopoly supplier of a vital and scarce commodity, of which position it could not take advantage. We on this side of the House have an overwhelming case for relieving the financial burden which is placed upon the Coal Board. We feel that the absolute minimum that could be given to help the Board would be to wipe off the £92·8 million accumulated deficit and to make substantial reductions in the Board's liability for interest payments.
We cannot object to pits being closed where resources are exhausted. No one can object to that for it is no good having a cage running up and down with no coal to pull, but we feel that we have made a case for keeping most of the economic pits open. If we had been allowed to take advantage of 'the position in the eight or ten years after nationalisation, as one hon. Member

explained, we should have had £500 million in reserve. That could have been used to help those pits, especially until the Government found some alternative employment for the men in them.
I do not know if hon. Members opposite realise—I do because I have been in this predicament—all the social consequences which emanate from the closing of a pit. I remember the time when one could walk through a shopping centre in a mining town and find it easier to count the shops which were open than those which were closed. There were dismal conditions and a lack of amenities in the villages and the loss of dignity of the people who previously had worked in the pit and could not find other employment. That could be elaborated much further.
The Coal Board has never had a chance of making a go of its financial obligations. It has been said by hon. Members opposite, both in this Chamber and on public platforms, that if we continue with this type of Conservative administration we could double the standard of living in twenty-five years. That would be very nice and no one would take any exception to it, but if it is to be brought about more energy must be produced. Let us tackle this job in future as it should be tackled. Let us have a nationally co-ordinated fuel policy embracing not only coal, but atomic energy, natural gas and oil. They can all play their part. What is more important is to know the extent to which they would have to play their part so that they can make proper plans.
As everyone in this House realises, the strain on our balance of payments if we continue to place too much reliance on oil will be very sharp and acute. We have an indigenous fuel and we have the men to win it. It can play a prominent part in the future of this country. In order to give some substance to what I have been saying, I shall quote something which appeared in the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Nationalised Industries. It has been quoted before, but it is worth quoting again:
If decisions are to be taken on grounds of the national economy or of social needs then the additional cost should be provided in advance out of public funds and your Committee wish to recommend the principle that where Government action causes a nationalised


industry to incur a specific loss or specific expenditure which it would not otherwise incur the Government should take steps to compensate the industry.
This has not been adopted in the case of the National Coal Board. The cotton industry was allowed £30 million to contract. That was done quite rightly. Under the new Transport Act the railways deficit of £400 million has been written off and another £800 million has been placed to suspense account with no interest-bearing qualities. It is to be repaid if at some time the railways can afford to pay some of it back. There should be provision for N.C.B. finance to be put on a solid basis in the interests not only of the industry but of the nation as a whole.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not wish to detain the House for very long, because I know that other hon. Members, especially those opposite, wish to speak, but I should not like the House to pass from the Second Reading under the impression that there was a lack of interest on these benches in a subject which concerns many of us. The reason I wish to intervene this evening is that on the last occasion when we had a Bill dealing with the finances of the Coal Board I said that I could no longer support the pouring of public money down the bottomless pit of nationalised coal. Those were harsh words which, at that time, I judged to be valid and reasonable. Because on this occasion I want to support this Bill, which gives financial facilities to the Coal Board, I wish to say a few words about it now.
My experience of the coal industry does not, of course, compare with that of hon. Members opposite and some on my side of the House, although two of my grandparents, in their various ways, were concerned with coal. One lived in the Forest of Dean, in west Gloucestershire, not as a mine owner, but as one whose whole livelihood was affected by the prosperity or otherwise of the industry. My other grandfather, being a canny Scot, decided that he would invest such money as he made in the world of medicine in a company or some companies which he thought would bring him a fair return. He put a great part of his small fortune into Kent coal. I do not want to disparage the efforts of Kent coal, but I can tell the House that the

efforts of my grandfather to invest in it were disastrous and that we in no way benefited; in fact, it was all lost.
I cite that because not by any means has everyone who invested in the industry gained extortionate profits from coal in the past. Nor is it reasonable to think that the National Coal Board should not pay interest on capital put into the industry in the days before nationalisation. I know that many people think that this is a millstone round the neck of the Board, but there were those who put their hard-earned and taxed re·sources into something which they thought would bring a return to them and their descendants and very few have done particularly well out of it.

Mr. J. Hill: Does the hon. Member agree that had the pits still been under private enterprise those people who put their money into them, and who are still drawing interest from the industry, would have been drawing nothing?

Mr. Cooke: I cannot answer for a specific case, but, in general, there are some undertakings which, even if the pits were closed, would have had some value. The workings and the various assets might have been sold and the shareholders might have got something for their money. The value of land being what it is, there might have been some profit. But I cannot argue the particular case without the details, and this is not the place to argue it. I wanted to make the point that it is fair that some return should be given to these people who invested their money in days gone by.
Some hon. Members suggest that the uneconomic coal mines should be run as a social service, and this is where they and my hon. Friends obviously differ, because we do not feel that uneconomic affairs of any kind should be run as a social service. I do not think that the records of my hon. Friends and myself in this matter are such that it could be said that we have deliberately disregarded the interests of communities where there have been uneconomic pits, because we have done what we can to face up to the difficulties of changing circumstances.
I wished to intervene simply because when we last discussed this matter I said that I was unable to support the


Government. I was one of six people who voted against the Government, and they included Viscount Hinchingbrooke, formerly the hon. Member for Dorset, South, who, unfortunately, is no longer with us. I wanted to make the point this evening that I see no objection to the Bill, which provides increased, helpful financial facilities for an industry which is more and more becoming a working concern—and no good Tory could be opposed to that kind of thing. I wish to support the Bill.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. William Warbey: The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) seems quite incapable of understanding that the conduct of great public industries and services, especially those which are contracting through economic circumstances, necessarily involves quite substantial social cost, which ought to be borne by the community and not by those people working in the industry or by a particular section of the community. That is the whole issue which lies between the two sides of the House in the debate.
The Bill is pathetic and inadequate. The best which can be said for it is that it probably does no harm, except that it rather tightens Treasury control over the short-term financing of the National Coal Board—and that seems to be its main intention, because it does nothing whatever to the borrowing powers of the Board. Under the 1951 Act, the Board already possesses powers to borrow up to £20 million for short-term financing, and the Bill does not add a single penny to the Board's borrowing powers. In other words, it makes no contribution whatever to the financial problems facing the Board, problems which have been created very largely through Government policy.
If the Government had intended seriously to tackle the financial problems, we could have had a Bill of very different character. We could have had a Bill which would have made a grant from public funds to the Coal Board of £70 million to repay the money lost on imports carried out as a result of Government orders and sold below cost as a result of Government orders. Such a Bill would also have included a further grant of £50 million to pay for the extra

cost of over-stocking, again a result of Government policy, and the effort to abate the social consequences of that Government policy.
Thirdly, the Bill would have included a provision for writing off a substantial part of the capital value of the assets taken over at vesting day, most of which have exhausted their value or will have exhausted their value within a few years, and on which it is quite fantastic that the Board should be compelled to continue to pay high rates of compensation and interest.
If the Government had done something like that, then the Coal Board would have been in a position to pay its way on a diminished target output and would have been put into a position to face the kind of competition which the Government say that it will face in the coming year. We know that whether we go into the Common Market or not, as long as we have a Tory Government their policy will be to apply the rules of the Common Market, which are the rules of competition.
The rules of competition will require the Government to compel the Coal Board to import foreign coal and allow free imports of foreign oil and natural gas, regardless of its effect upon the mining industry. That is the prospect which the Board faces, and it is the reason why the Government, during the last twelve to eighteen months have suddenly tightened up their financial policy towards the Board. The social cost which the mining industry, the mining community as a whole and, indeed, large sections of the general public, not necessarily all of them belonging to the mining community, now have to suffer arises largely from the fact that the Government have in mid-stream changed their policy for the direction of the coal industry.
The policy now being applied is not the policy which was agreed with the Board a few years ago and reflected in the Revised Plan for Coal. The plan was based on a realistic assessment of the prospective demand for coal in the coming years. It was a plan for the orderly and socially planned contraction of the coal mining industry, very largely by natural and voluntary processes. If that policy had been carried out, as it


was intended, by a slow, steady and orderly process, the contraction of the labour force in the industry would have come about purely by natural wastage and its relocation in the areas where it was most required would have been carried out also by the voluntary process of migration, instead of by the forced process of migration which is now taking place.
Eighteen months ago the Government changed their policy into one of forcing the pace of contraction and also forcing the pace of putting the Board into a position where it had to pay its way in competition with other sources of fuel and power. The Government deliberately speeded up the closing of mines. They introduced the policy that every mine must pay its way or go. That is the policy now being operated. The Board is being compelled to operate the policy at so accelerated a pace that it is unable to cope with the social problems now arising as a result of the Government's policy.
Hon. Members have spoken today about the social problems of the areas which coal miners are compelled to leave in order to go to other areas where there is work available for them in the mining industry. I want to say something about the social problems as they are seen at the receiving end. My constituency is in the heart of the East Midlands Division. Into this area are coming a number of men from Durham and elsewhere who have been forced by the Government's policy, whether they wanted to or not, to migrate to the East Midlands Division.
We know, and all the local miners and local folk know, that these men have been compelled to tear up their roots in their home towns, leave their friends and their community, and come to seek new homes and a new community life in a strange area. They come expecting to find a welcome into a community. They come expecting to find that they will have jobs comparable in reward with those on which they had previously been engaged and expecting that they will have somewhere decent to live for themselves and their families.
What is happening now? The conditions under which they could be welcomed into the local communities

are not being satisfied. Conditions are being created in which it is impossible for the local community, including the local authorities which the Parliamentary Secretary was inclined to blame for any lack of progress with housing—

Mr. Peyton: No. I must interrupt the hon. Member to make it clear that I did not blame local authorities in general. I particularly singled out two or three local authorities which were being most helpful and I asked—and I think it a very justifiable request—that others which have proposals before them should treat those proposals most seriously and consider them with both humanity and urgency. The hon. Member is, therefore, not entitled to say that I criticised local authorities.

Mr. Warbey: The Parliamentary Secretary has repeated what he said before. In other words, he has accused some local authorities of lacking humanity.

Mr. Peyton: Mr. Peyton indicated dissent.

Mr. Warbey: I am pointing out that the conditions are such that humanity is impossible. After all, have the Government given a guarantee to all local authorities that while they build houses to receive miners coming into their communities, they will also be able to build as many houses for local needs—and at the same subsidy? Unless the Government are prepared to give that guarantee they are facing local authorities with an impossible choice between the kind of people to receive humanity—humanity for the people in their own areas who have been waiting for years for homes but who cannot afford the high rents which local authorities are being increasingly compelled to charge, or for those coming in from outside.
What about the Coal Board itself? The Parliamentary Secretary said that it is also providing houses and that it has the power to do this. In my constituency there is a place called Meden Bank, near Stanton Hill. Meden Bank was an old colliery housing estate which was taken over by the Coal Board from the former colliery owner. The houses were in such a poor condition that the Board decided that it was not worth while to modernise them or even properly to maintain them.
As a result this part of Meden Bank degenerated into a derelict area. In appearance it became a slum, with the buildings half broken down, rotten or decaying, with broken windows and with the streets in an un-made condition with no pavements. Finally, the Board decided three years ago to clear the site and to re-house the people in it with the co-operation of the local authorities concerned. The local miners had to be re-housed and then a site had to be arranged for other purposes.
I visited this site last Saturday afternoon. Today, after three years, it is only two-thirds cleared. The remainder of the houses are now three-quarters broken down. Rats come in from the fields and four or five families are still living in these conditions and have not been re-housed. Last week Sutton-in-Ashfield District Council was told by the Coal Board that it required permission to use the site to provide caravans for the Durham miners who would be coming into the locality. The local authority, faced with an impossible situation—an emergency as it was told by the Board—had to agree to grant the licence although this was contrary to its general policy.
On this site, when it is eventually cleared, and on which might have been built, had there been proper planning and sufficient time to plan, good new houses for the men who would be coming from elsewhere, will be accommodated 32 caravans in which Durham miners, uprooted from their old homes, will be required to live with their wives and families. They will be required to eat and sleep, cook and live, all in virtually one room, with primitive sanitary and water supply facilities.
These are the conditions under which, as a result of Government policy towards the mining industry, British miners are being expected to live these days. It is a disgrace and it results directly from the policy pursued by the Government of forcing upon the Coal Board an acceleration of the cutting down of the mining industry and the closing of pits and the transfer of labour into other areas. Such an acceleration, carried out under the dictates of Government policy regardless of the social cost, causes such social consequences for the men who are moved and for the local

community as will not be forgotten for many years to come.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. J. Hill: I welcome the Bill, though I come from an area which has suffered in the past from the policy pursued by the Coal Board and an area which will suffer much more if the Board's plans are carried out. The plans are that 9,000 jobs will be lost in the Fife area in the next few months, and that in the same area and in other parts of Scotland in the next three years a further 24,000 jobs will be lost. The manpower in Scottish pits will be reduced from about 60,000 to about 40,000.
Those men were told that they would have to move if they wanted another job in the industry. The Parliamentary Secretary said this afternoon that, in conjunction with the local authorities, the Board intended to build houses for them. Is there any other industry that has to accept the financial responsibility of housing its employees? I do not know of any—perhaps the Minister will tell me. I warn those local authorities in England which the Minister is now asking to build these houses to watch their step, because Scottish local authorities were asked to do exactly the same thing—and what happened?
Glen Ochil is a name well known to the Board. The local authority built 900 houses for the miners who were to work there, but the Board suddenly changed its mind and closed the colliery. If those miners accept the Board's advice to go to England for jobs, the local authority will be left with those houses on its hands, and the financial responsibility for them. I therefore advise local authorities in England to get some security or guarantee from either the Board or the Government before embarking on this project, because the Government seem to have every intention of contracting the industry as much as possible.
In my constituency, they closed the shale industry, which also employed miners and, because of that, the coal pit that was supplying the shale industry, and employing 460 men, also had to be closed because the Board could not sell its product elsewhere. That was the first occasion on which Lord Robens, of whom we have heard so much this afternoon, said that if the bulk of those men


wanted work in the industry they would need to go to England for a job.
The tragic thing is that coal is now being imported from England into Scotland. The Government have a big responsibility for that, too, because the announcement on prices made by the Minister of Power in December of last year has meant that Scottish industry has to pay anything from 10s. to £1 more than the price in England, so we can understand why Scottish industrialists are importing coal from England. But carrying coals to Newcastle cannot hold a candle to that.
Furthermore, when the B.M.C. factory came to Scotland, we were told repeatedly by the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Labour and the Secretary of State for Scotland that the firm would employ redundant miners, and that firms ancillary to B.M.C. would also employ redundant miners. But the build-up of B.M.C. has not worked out as was expected, and no ancillary firms have followed on.
It is true that in Scotland we have one ray of hope. A coal-fired electricity generator is being built at Cockenzie, in East Lothian. Here, I want to refer to the Mackenzie Report, paragraph 57 of which states:
From the evidence before us, we see coal as a firm source of energy in Scotland lasting until well beyond the turn of the century, and that at least three times the present annual requirement for electricity purposes could be met during that period, provided there is early and continued collaboration between the two industries.
For years we on this side have been advocating closer co-operation between the electricity generating industry and the coal industry, and I only hope that the Government will accept the Mackenzie's Committee's recommendation, and put it into operation before it is too late.
Another coal-burning electricity generator should be built in Scotland. The coal is there, and the Report says that
…the availability of coal from Durham is problematical.
What does that mean for Durham? More pits to be closed. Our concern is to avoid any more closures in Scotland. We have the coal, and we have the men to dig it.
Very often we have been twitted from the benches opposite about why we advocate keeping the pits open when so often we from this side have explained the hardships of the job. The answer is simple. We ask that the pits be kept open only until such time as we get the industries which, we have been told time and time again from the Government Front Bench, would come to Scotland. None of them has come yet. When those industries come, however, we will go further than the Minister and the Coal Board and we will say that the lot should be closed.
I know that I am due to finish about now, but there are occasions when our feelings get the better of us. I have been attached to the coal industry for many years and I know all the difficulties of the job. At the same time, I consider it far better that the Government, through the Ministry of Power, should make efforts to keep the pits open rather than pay the men unemployment benefit.
By the loss of these jobs if this policy is continued, the effect upon Scotland's economy will be tremendous. It does not end with the miners losing their jobs bat affects the people who supply the miners, from heavy industry down to the lightest industry. It would be to the Government's advantage, rather than to close the pits, to keep them open and do what they have been promising to do and what the Prime Minister said during the West Lothian by-election, when he said that he was concerned about Scotland and wanted to see it fully employed. Here is an opportunity for him to see that the miners keep their jobs until such time as the other industry which, we are told, is coming comes to take them up.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. William Blyton: My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) opened the debate from this side of the House with an excellent speech about the industry in which both he and I have spent our lives. We have had good speeches from my right hon. and hon. Friends and I hope in the course of what I have to say to reinforce their arguments.
As is customary in coal debates, we have heard the usual speech from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). When Lord Robens reads


the hon. Member's speech tomorrow, he will say, "Heaven save me from my new friend". The hon. Member claimed a great deal for Tories on a six months' balance sheet. He claimed that it was a victory for Tory policy, but he forgot to say that when the Labour Party left office in 1951, the accumulated deficit in the coal industry was only £5·6 million but that after eleven years of Tory administration in coal, it is now over £92 million.
I hope to deal later in my speech with the comments of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), who spoke about Europe. I can tell the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box), who had the experience of 3½ hours in a mine and enjoyed it, that we take an entirely different view, having spent thirty years working for small wages in the days that are gone.
This has been a wide debate. The Bill gives the Minister power to finance temporary revenue deficiencies. It enables the Treasury to guarantee temporary borrowing by the Board from sources other than the Minister and it changes the Board's financial year so that it runs from April to March. We on this side have no objection to the Bill, so we will support it.
The Bill has given us an opportunity to look at the industry generally as we see it today. How do we see the financial position of the coal industry? We see it as an industry that has had to carry unfair financial burdens for years. Some idea of the size of the burdens placed upon it as the result of policies pursued by the Government is gained from the fact that each year since nationalisation the industry has made an operating profit. This profit was £275 million by the end of 1961, yet this has been insufficient to meet the interest payments to the Minister of more than £345 million during the same period. The result is that the industry is £92 million "in the red".
No one can deny that up to 1957—this is proved in the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries—that the industry was run as a partial social service. The Select Committee showed how prices were kept down and increases often refused or delayed by Governments in the past. All this meant a loss to the Board. A further burden placed on the coal industry was the Coal

Mining (Subsidence) Act and the tremendous loss on imported coal. During that period, whether we like it or not, the coal industry was subsidising private enterprise by selling imported coal at inland prices, and the loss was as I have stated.
During the same period, when British users of steel could not get steel in England, they had to pay a higher price if they bought it from the Continent. Another factor was that the industry was stopped from exporting coal when world prices were high. It could have made a great amount of money in those years, but it was forced to supply the inland market. I do not complain too much about that, as it would have meant that full employment would have been jeopardised, but it is just as well to remember that if the Board had operated the laws of private enterprise it would have sold in a sellers' market with better financial results.
When our economy was stagnant, a few years ago—it is still stagnant, for that matter—the Board had to stock coal at a high cost which maintained employment for the men. It could easily have closed pits, as was done in the 1930s, and the Government would have had to pay huge unemployment benefits. The economic consequences of keeping the pits open was a burden on the Board, resulting in a heavy charge on the industry. The least that we can say about other countries in Europe at that time is that they helped financially their coal industries to stock coal, while again our Government did nothing.
We have to consider another factor when we talk about this industry and make due allowance for it. This was the planning of the industry and the investment necessary to support such planning which was based on the Government's estimate and forecast that the demand for coal would reach 240 million tons in 1965. Unfortunately, in the absence of a national fuel policy, circumstances arose in which the industry was forced to contract to bring production into line with demand. This extra capital which the Board was forced to invest in the industry on the Government's estimate is now having to be carried in the industry by smaller production. This alone justifies a large reconstruction of the industry's capital.
The industry itself is not unmindful of its responsibilities to supply coal at prices which seemed best for the public interest. It has loyally accepted this obligation, but it is a pity that this cannot be said for industrial consumers who, having reaped benefit as a consequence of the Government policy of depressing prices for the first ten years of nationalised mining, are now willing to turn their backs on British coal so that they might increase their already substantial profit making potential.
Therefore, looking at the Board's finances and taking all these factors into consideration, it is time the Government went to the aid of the Board and helped it as it has helped in cotton, railways, agriculture and many other industries. I have emphasised these points because there are many who have very short memories, especially the steel owners and the industrial consumers.
These people should remember that, had the Board enjoyed the same freedom of choice as they claim for themselves in their own commercial transactions, it would have made substantial profits in the export market when prices there were far in excess of the inland price, and that the tragedy of the present position of the Board's finances is that, having been treated as a partial public service for the last ten years, it is now expected to act overnight as a commercial concern.
Our position is clear. We believe that there can be no realistic plan in industry unless there is a policy of economic expansion and full employment and the responsibility for this rests clearly on the Government. Such a policy is necessary to accommodate the technological changes that take place. The Government should stimulate production in other basic industries, and their duty is to maintain full employment.
I do not apologise for coming back to the question of a national fuel policy in place of the free-for-all in which the Government believe. The Government should assess each year our annual fuel requirements, in a plan which would allow coal a share commensurate with its position as a valuable national asset and to be under-written by the Government. Within such a policy, the share of the other national fuel industries would also be determined, with co-

ordination of and consultation between nationalised industries.
The Government should also face the question of the distribution of industry to meet the needs of the contracting coalfields, and there should be controls and inducements to mitigate the effects of this contraction, with the restriction of recruitment to provide employment in the mining communities. Planning ought to be carried out to ensure that before pits are closed alternative employment should either be found within the industry or in other industries brought in to replace mining. I know that the Minister is dead against a fuel policy for Britain, but I also know that he is prepared to accept the policy of the European Economic Community, about which I will say something later.
What are the Government to do to bring employment to areas where pits are closed for economic reasons, or because of contracted output, or because the coal is exhausted? No doubt we will be told, as we have been told before, that in certain counties there are thousands of jobs in the pipeline. In Durham, we have never seen the pipeline, never mind the jobs which are in it. It is more like a pipe dream than a pipeline. In areas like Durham unemployment has grown and there is great anxiety in many of the coalfields. Is the Coal Board contracting the industry too quickly? I believe that it is. I recognise that it is not responsible for the social aspects of the policy, but the Government certainly are.
If it is Government policy that all uneconomic units must go—and apparently it is their policy to equate production with demand—then they must plan to meet the social consequences which arise, and they have not done so yet. I admit at once that the Coal Board and the unions have done all that they could in the circumstances to place men in other jobs and to find lodgings for them in receiving areas, and so on. Men and their families have had to be uprooted from areas in which they have spent many years and have often been unable to get houses in new areas, in which they have had to make new associations.
There has been migration from Scotland, Durham and other areas, and


there is bound to come a time—and I say this advisedly—when there will have been so many closures that the receiving areas will be full. In view of that development, will the Government do anything to meet the situation? There is nothing that any of us can do and once again people are facing anxiety which we thought had gone when the Labour Party won power in 1945.
In my county, as in Scotland and other areas, we are faced with the migration of population. There is a way that the Government can help. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton spoke about the building of electricity generating stations. The most effective way to help Durham is to build a power station, if necessary to export electricity until such time as it can be used locally. A power station of 2,000 megawatt capacity and using 5 million tons of coal a year would guarantee the jobs of 10,000 miners. Migration would cease, for not only the 10,000 miners, but their families and shopkeepers and others who indirectly depend on the wages of miners, would benefit.
The cost of a generating station would be negligible compared with the social cost of doing nothing. My colleagues and I have met the Minister, but he told us that the price of coal in Durham was uneconomic while production in Yorkshire and the Midlands was economic. This is hotly disputed in Durham, and the Minister should ensure that generating stations are set up near contracting coal fields to help offset the problems created by the Government's policy of hiving off uneconomic pits.
Two classes of people are hit when mines are closed. First, there is the light-rate compensation man. This is the man who can do only light work suitable to his disability from injuries received while following his employment. The other type is the man who suffers from the deadly disease of pneumoconiosis. When a pit is closed, men who are doing light work cannot get jobs at the receiving pits because at those pits there are men suffering from like disabilities and are therefore in those jobs.
Again, what is to be done with the men who, after many years of loyal service in the industry, find themselves, at the age of 55, in the position of not being able to find alternative work? I know that I shall be told by the Minister that such men will get redundancy pay. We are all glad of that because it is a great help, but it is a little hard on a man of 55 to get redundancy pay and find himself written off in the labour market.
How are we to train these men, and, if we do, will there be employment for them? Will new industries be brought in to give these men a chance to find employment? Are these men who have served in the industry all their lives to be left on the scrapheap in the mining villages after the pits are closed and given no help? We urge on the Government that it is their duty to do something in this matter.
There is another problem which arises from the Tory Party policy of hiving off uneconomic units in areas like ours. How are we to provide employment in our mining villages for the children leaving school if the pits have been closed? This is a serious problem for us in all areas where the industry is contracting. Although the Government have known for many years about the problem of the bulge, no planning has been undertaken to absorb our young people who are now leaving elementary schools. The bulge will be with us for several years, and will create great problems not only in the areas where pits have been closed, but in the development districts. The Board's policy of controlled recruitment and the retirement of men at 65 has been helpful in retaining our manpower reduced as it has been by mechanisation and closures—but it has reduced the number of jobs available for the boys who are leaving school.
It is estimated that in my county 20 pits will close during the next five years, and that our manpower will drop from 82,000 to about 50,000 by 1967. The worst effects of this will be felt in the west of the county. Unless something is done, and done very quickly, I am afraid that we will face another 1930.
I want to deal with another feature of the coal industry. Recently, there have been reports that the Gas Council is showing great interest in the deposits of natural


gas in Northern Holland. When we opposed the policy of importing natural gas from the Sahara we said that it was the beginning of a policy which would be detrimental to the coal industry. We were told that this was not so.
I ask the Minister directly: is the Gas Council again going to bring in natural gas from Holland? The Sahara gas project that the Minister sanctioned represents 10 per cent. of Britain's total gas consumption. Its effect will be felt in the Durham coalfields in about two years' time. If imports from Holland are contemplated on the same scale it will have a serious effect not only on the coal industry but on our balance of payments.
The effect will be most serious for those gas coal producing areas which are already contracting. The gas industry seems rapidly to be moving towards the use of feedstocks which require foreign exchange and will produce gas without leaving coke as a by-product. The Minister himself knows that the gas industry is expected, in the years ahead, to provide the major portion of solid smokeless fuels required for the smokeless zones. Will it be authorised to do this, as well as to bring in gas from Holland, thereby injuring our own coal industry?
I now turn to the question of the Government's application to join the Common Market, and to ask what are the Government's intentions. Everyone knows my views on the subject. I will not argue the case for or against tonight. I simply wish to obtain information from the Government so that we may know where we are travelling in relation to this important problem. I ask what is involved in the six questions mentioned in paragraph 5 of Cmnd. 1838—The United Kingdom and the European Communities—which was issued in October.
Sub-paragraph (a) states that during the course of the negotiations it will be necessary to determine the question of
Any changes in United Kingdom practices and policies which may be required to enable the United Kingdom to observe the rules of the Treaty of Paris on prices, and the provisions about transport associated with them, including the problem of maritime freights.
Does this mean that our price structure must go? Under Article 61 of the Treaty the High Authority can fix maximum and minimum prices. What effect will this have on our finances? Further, will the price structure be a national one or

will there be district prices? I should like some enlightenment about the meaning of sub-paragraph (a)?
Can we be told what we have to give up to meet the requirements of the Treaty of Paris on prices? What is to happen to import prices of coal from third countries? Will the Government oppose this provision, because of the danger of price alignment? Under the Treaty the Six will be entitled Ito export to us. Today, those exports are controlled, but they will not be if we join. I know that the Coal Board would wish any possible imports to be under its control. Do the Government support this view? It will be contrary to the Treaty.
What about oil? Under the Treaty the Six must publish prices and practise non-discrimination in the coal industry, but there is no regulation relating to prices and sales policy in the oil industry. Do the Government intend that the oil industry should be subject to the same provisions as apply to the coal industry?
How are we to obtain an export market in Europe? Are we going to sell at a loss in order to do so? We must remember that in Durham last year and this year the price was too low, and that one cause of our deficiency was the loss on export coal. Are we to sell at a loss, and make it up on our inland prices? Then, we are told that we can capture the generating stations on the European seaboard and that a big market lies there. I ask the Minister whether this can happen. The Generating Board in England argues that it is no cheaper in the Thames Estuary to fire on oil, because of the costly haul of coal from the coalfields. Will this not apply to the European seaboard, because we shall have a long haul in order to ship our coal there?
Let us now take paragraph 5 (d) of the Command Paper, which talks about the "exceptional control" over the British coal industry by the Coal Board, and says that the Treaty does not prejudice this system of ownership. I ask the Minister whether this involves scrapping of our sales organisation in the Coal Board. In the light of the High Court decision in the case of Belgium and Germany, in which it was ruled that to set up a sales organisation was incompatible with the rules of competition,


this makes me really apprehensive. In that High Court ruling on this matter, it was stated that the organisation suggested was too big and was incompatible with the rules of competition. In the light of this decision, will our sales organisation, both in coal and steel, remain as it is?
Further, what is meant in the Command Paper by the questions we have to answer about the Coal Board's "exceptional control over the industry"? Does it mean that we must accept that the Coal Board will no longer enjoy the power it now has on prices, agreements, concentration, transport rates on coal and commercial policy? Does it mean that the powers held under Chapter 5 of the Paris Treaty, where a decision made cannot be upset by an elected Government, gives them control over our coal and steel? Does it mean that we can have district competition here internally with an overall national committee, and that nationalisation, as we now know it is to be radically altered to suit the rules of the Paris Treaty?
These are some of the questions that have bothered me ever since I got this Report, and all I want to say, in conclusion, is that at the end of 1970, if we join the Common Market, we shall face a common coal policy known as the "Document on Synthesis" While I do not want to go into all the pros and cons of it at this late hour, I would point out that it states specifically that there will be a "free-for-all" in 1970, that discriminatory taxes on fuel will be abolished, that it will be "every man for himself when Jack's overboard", and that in the coal industry of the Six, or the Seven if we are in it, coal production will be halved by 1970 under the fuel plan.
So I say to the Minister that if we have contracted this industry by 1965 to a manpower figure of 500,000, and if we join the Common Market, we will then see the mining community of this country—when coal production is halved by 1970, as this document forecasts—facing another period of agonising reappraisal of our industry. I have always believed in public ownership, especially of coal and steel, as an instrument which the Government could use in economic planning, and it is essential

to have the freedom to use it without being tied up by rules which could determine whether or not the instrument which we have created can be put into operation. From my studies of the Document on Synthesis, I am confident that we shall again face difficulties at the end of the transitional period, and I ask the Minister to throw some light on these problems before we irrevocably tie ourselves to commitments which will last for forty years.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): I wish to begin by thanking the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) for the kind things he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George). I, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, miss the great experience and wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok. His absence, and the lack of that advice which he could always give, increases for me the value of such debates as this when I can obtain advice from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and from other hon. Members.
In the last five hours the Bill which we are discussing today has received rather scant attention and if I were a proud parent I might have been rather hurt about that. I have heard it mentioned on five occasions only and it has been discussed at any length by only one right hon. Gentleman opposite, the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). Even with his experience of my office I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman entirely apprehended the purpose of the Bill. While it is a necessary Measure I am not particularly hurt that it has not had more attention. I do not think that any of us would claim that it is the kind of bedside reading which we would prefer. It is no simpler than any financial Measure ever is, and though I may claim a fairly firm grasp of its two provisions I prefer—I am sure that hon. Members will agree with me—to rest on the pellucid explanation which we have already had from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Nabarro: Pellucid—what is that?

Mr. Wood: Very clear.
Instead of concentrating on the Bill, hon. Members who have taken part in


the debate have ranged widely and discussed the future not only of the gas industry but our vast investment in the oil industry. There has also been a survey of the future in Europe and the United States. Apart from these glances into the future we have had from hon. Gentlemen opposite, as I expected or suspected that we might have, some nostalgic peeps at the past.
In my opinion some hon. Members opposite have exhibited what seemed to me rather disturbing signs of chronic schizophrenia. After listening to one or two of the speeches I could not make out whether hon. Members opposite would like to see more men or fewer men employed in the pits. In some speeches I heard both views expressed. I find it difficult to understand whether these hon. Members would like to aim—as would the Government—at the Coal Board making a profit, after the necessary reorganisation of the industry, or whether they would be content if the Coal Board made a loss through keeping open uneconomic pits. And not only uneconomic pits. Some hon. Members appeared to be asking that even exhausted pits should be kept open. They pointed out the social problems which arose following the closing of any pit.
It has been argued that a larger part of the market should he guaranteed for coal. My difficulty is that were a larger part of the market so guaranteed and the coal sold less competitively than otherwise would be the case, I cannot see what benefit that would bring to industry as a whole. It is very important both from the point of view of hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friends, that industry as a whole should be benefited as much as possible.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), who I do not think is now in the Chamber, asked what I thought was the optimum number of men for the industry.

Mr. Nabarro: I gave him the answer.

Mr. Wood: My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster had a go, but I shall give my own answer. It is the same kind of question as what is the optimum size of my living room? It depends on a number of things such as the amount of furniture, the number of people using the room and the cost of

its heating. All such things have to be taken into consideration, just as many things have to be taken into consideration in deciding the optimum number of men in the industry. Such things as the demand for coal, its price and, above all, the particular methods of winning the coal will all have a considerable effect on the number of men employed. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster had a go by mentioning 500,000 men. If manless faces or manless pits come about in the future, we might be able to do with fewer men.

Mr. A. Roberts: Provided there is no unemployment in the mining areas. A man prefers to work in the pit to being unemployed.

Mr. Wood: I am coming to that. It is part of the Government's policy to try to bring new employment to areas where coal mining is declining. The right hon. Member for Easington asked about employment in the pits in 1960 and 1962. The figure are: in 1960, 602,000; and in 1962, 540,000. That is 62,000 less than two years ago. If it is suggested that that means that jobs are not available for those 62,000 the right hon. Member will know, as I do, that it is very wide of the truth because unemployment in the mining industry is sustained—due to the policies of the Coal Board and its ability to re-employ miners displaced from other pits—constantly below the national average.
The debate has rightly devoted considerable attention to men now in the industry, their problems and their security. I wish to join with hon. Members who have expressed congratulations to the Board for what I believe has been one of its greatest successes. Over the last few years, not only in 1960 but further back, the run-down in manpower which we have discussed earlier has been something like 160,000 men. I do not want to avoid any of the awkward questions put to me from time to time. I do not think anyone could complain that the direct unemployment caused by that run-down has been significant. Admittedly it means a decline in the number of jobs available and that is very important. It also means other important things; as the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) pointed out, serious difficulties for the disabled


and older men and a decline of opportunities for boys leaving school. All that is important, but unemployment caused by pit closures has been negligible, very largely owing to the Board's policy.
I am very well aware of the problems which no doubt will exist in future, particularly in Scotland, and the rather different problems—but still problems—of redevelopment and re-employment in the North-East, including the county from which the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring comes, and also the different problems in South Wales. In the next few years I think we shall see a great deal of movement in the industry. I am quite sure that only through movement to the industry's new and reconstructed pits can the men who remain employed in the industry achieve the security they want.
I certainly recognise that transfers from one pit to another may in many cases lead to some initial loss of earnings, and I certainly realise the problems of promotion to the face for men who are transferred—difficult problems both for the National Coal Board and for the unions. But I am certain that in the long run there can be no doubt that a miner will earn more in a pit which has a high output and a high productivity than by remaining in a colliery which is struggling for its life.

Mr. Mason: The problem in the mining industry is not that of output per man-shift and things like that. Because of investment, modernisation and mechanisation, that is gradually being solved. The problem now is that in an area, two pits each employing 1,500 men—a total of 3,000—may close, and there may be 200 or 300 of those men above the age of 55, as well as those who are industrially injured or suffering from such industrial diseases as silicosis and pneumoconiosis. These men cannot move and cannot get other employment. It is therefore incumbent upon the Board, the Ministry of Power and the President of the Board of Trade to do something positive about that problem arising in the closure of collieries, and the Minister ought to be addressing himself to that problem now.

Mr. Wood: I ought not to be doing it now, because in the order in which I am speaking I shall be doing that in

about three minutes. I shall then address myself to the problem. Clearly it is an important one. The only answer to the problem of the disabled miner is the provision of new employment in areas which are declining.
Before I deal with that issue, I want to turn to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) and the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill). This is the problem of differential prices, particularly in Scotland and, as hon. Members will recall, in other areas of the country. The Coal Board decided at the end of last year or early this year—this was no new decision but a decision of some years' standing—that prices should reflect much more closely than they had done previously differences in the cost of production. My hon. Friend rightly drew my attention to the paper-makers in his constituency. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has previously drawn my attention to the steel-makers in his constituency. Both those industries were admittedly adversely affected by this differential increase, but the important point is that it is not only those two industries which have to make both ends meet; the coal industry must make both ends meet, too.
We must remember that the Scottish deficit has been of a different order from all the other deficits in all other divisions. It has been much larger since nationalisation than the whole national deficit put together. The chairman of the National Coal Board was, therefore, left with alternative remedies. One was to increase prices generally and so reduce the competitive power of all the Board's most economic production. The second was that there should be Scottish and other local increases in order to reflect some of the extra cost in those areas of producing the coal.
The Board felt, and I agreed, that another general increase all over Great Britain would strike at the heart of the industry and would reduce very considerably its powers to compete with its competitors. Frankly, I think that I can claim that the wisdom of the choice Which the Coal Board made, and which I approved, is already being reflected in this year's improved results.
I want to come directly to Scotland and to say something about closures, because I know of the great anxiety which they cause hon. Members, which has been expressed frequently this afternoon. Scotland is one of two areas, the other being that of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, which will be hardest hit by closures. We have a picture of the problem in the review which the Board carried out. Of 106 pits in Scotland 27 must in any case be closed because of exhaustion and 46 have adequate reserves and are profitable to work. In between those two figures of 27 and 46 there are 33 pits in the middle category—those which have so far been unprofitable. Obviously how many of these have to close will depend on the demand for coal and on the success of the Board's present efforts to make the industry more efficient and up to date.
There will be a number of closures which cannot be avoided. I can assure the House, although I think that it already knows, that the Board does and will do all it can to find other jobs in industry for the men who are displaced. By the end of this year there will have been closures in Scotland involving as many as 7,000 men, many of them unfortunately affected by the tragic accident at Barony pit, to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred at the beginning of the debate. The Board hopes to offer employment to nearly all of them inside the industry. For next year the Board has already been discussing with the unions possible closures involving something over 2,500 men, but again most of them should be offered alternative jobs in industry.
I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) about the obligations of the Government. The Government clearly have obligations in this matter. We are aware of those obligations. We have carried through the House the Local Employment Act, and we are well aware of the danger and the undesirability of the population build-up in the south-east corner of England. That is very much in our minds. We are determined to increase the attractive power—I speak in an industrial sense—of Scotland, the North-East and the other areas which are losing population. I do not think that hon. Members do those areas any good by moaning about impending dereliction. If they look at the example

in South Wales, they will no doubt agree that there has been a veritable transformation in that area because it got a good start and because industry followed. There is no reason at all why, taking the longer view—admittedly it will take time; it cannot be done in a year—we should not see a similar change in Merseyside, where a great deal of industry is already going, and in Scotland.
I am absolutely with the wish of hon. Gentlemen that more should be done, but I refute entirely their suggestion that the Government are merely sitting supinely by and not caring about the situation. I have seen the efforts, and the success of the efforts, which my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour are making. They are making efforts, and successful efforts—for instance, the coming of the motor industry to Scotland and many other important developmnets—to do exactly what hon. Members want to happen. The Government are accepting their responsibility, not only in trying to persuade industry in the normal way to go and settle in Scotland and other places which need industry rather than settling in other places, but also by building a large number of advance factories. Hon. Gentlemen will know about the advance factories planned in Scotland in areas of threatened local unemployment—Shotts, Cowdenbeath, Cumnock, Sanquhar and Donibristle, and similarly in the North-East other advance factories are being built. I do not think it can possibly be argued that the Government are taking an indifferent view of this and are not acting as energetically as they possibily can.
The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) made the point about the power station in Durham being not only a helpful employment in itself but also a helpful provider of employment to a number of thousands of Durham miners. I should like to correct him because he suggested that I had given an answer, both in the House of Comomns and privately—to him and to some of his hon. Friends—to the effect that there would not ever be a power station in Durham. That is not what I said. My answer to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) in May of last year was to the effect that the choice was for the Generating Board, which was already building a power station at Blyth, but


that there were no immediate plans for a new power station in Northumberland and Durham.
Suggestions have been made that the industry's problems in Durham could not be solved unless a new power station was started there. I met a deputation of hon. Members from Durham constituencies in the summer and I am now arranging—and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street recently wrote to me about this—to meet them again with my hon. Friends from the Ministry of Labour or the Board of Trade.

Mr. Shinwell: I hope it will be more successful.

Mr. Wood: In considering this question of a Durham power station the Government will certainly take into account the points made in this debate and any new ones which the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends may develop in the course of the forthcoming meeting.

Mr. Shinwell: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the chairman of the North-Eastern Division of the Coal Board has himself strongly urged on the Government and the Electricity Authority that they should proceed expeditiously.

Mr. Wood: I have discussed the matter with the chairman of the Coal Board.
Let me come now to the great question of coal against oil which has, naturally, figured largely in the debate. The Government are criticised, on the one hand, for giving coal too little assistance during the period of adjustment and, on the other, for pursuing a protectionist policy which has led to high fuel costs to the detriment of the economy. I follow the principle that if one is in the middle of fire which is coming from both sides one is probably in the right position—and that has been my position since I arrived at the Ministry of Power.

Mr. Nabarro: A horrible argument.

Mr. Wood: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster considers it to be so. I thought it would have appealed to his sense of toleration and fairness. I have tried to pursue a

course since I arrived at the Ministry midway between reliance on indigenous fuel, even when it is uneconomic and I hope that the hon. Member for Kidderminster will approve that side of it—and—what I hope my hon. Friend will also approve—the avoidance of over-dependence on imports.

Mr. Nabarro: I do not approve of Her Majesty's Government placing a duty on fuel oil as a protectionist measure for coal. That is thoroughly bad.

Mr. Wood: I do not think that I could possibly discuss that with only seven minutes remaining for me to complete my speech.
I now refer to a striking phrase which the hon. Member for Durham used about imports of oil. He used the words "the placing of foreign fingers around Britain's economic windpipe". That is a good phrase but I do not agree with the metaphor and I should like to argue the matter with him on another occasion. However, these foreign fingers are not quite as important as he suggested, because I made inquiries about refinery output and the net import-export position. I found that this year the refinery output has been at record levels and the result is that after eight months of this year refinery production has more than matched inland deliveries and also that during the year we have been net exporters in the sense that exports of oil plus bunkers have exceeded imports.
Therefore, it is not correct to say that we are net importers. It is important to remember that if we are to exist at all in this country we need a great deal of oil for transport, aviation, agriculture and so on. As long as we are importing less than we are exporting, so that our net exports are greater, there is nothing wrong in that situation, and we would not be over-dependent on supplies for abroad.
There is one further point I want to make in reply to the hon. Member for Hamilton and that is on the question of the dual-fired station in the south of England. I approved the station, which is not one of 4,000 megawatt but of 1,000 megawatt, on the Medway. I am aware that the Central Electricity Generating Board has a choice of providing electricity in one of five


ways—either a nuclear-powered station, an oil-fired station, a coal-fired station, a dual-fired station or a power station, built further up in the north and transmitting electricity down to the south. It is clear that a nuclear station is not applicable everywhere, and a coal-fired station is not economic, for instance, on Southampton Water.
A dual-fired station may be wise rather than an oil-fired station because it may be, as in this case, that both coal and oil are quite well placed to get there economically. It may be that in this station, which will not come into production until 1968, coal will be competitive, but it is difficult, six years ahead, to say whether at that time coal will be competitive with the oil that might go into the station. Therefore, I think that the Central Electricity Generating Board is right to build a dual-fired station in that area which might be fired economically by either coal or oil.
I should also like to say a few words in reply to questions asked about the possible entry into the E.C.S.C. The Lord Privy Seal has told the Six that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to subscribe fully to the principles and objectives of the Treaty of Paris. The precise way in which the necessary arrangements will be implemented has still to be worked out. As yet there has been no discussion of the question of a financial contribution from Britain if it enters the Community. The admission of imports from outside Europe is under the terms of the Treaty a matter for individual Governments, but the Coal Board hopes to increase sales by improving efficiency, including the reduction of costs involved in loading and shipping. I was also asked how the Board's control could be said to be exceptional. The Six have suggested that the Board is exceptional in that it has no counterpart in any of the existing Community countries. That is what I think "exceptional" means, and we have replied that we do not believe that the organisation of the Board is in any way incompatible with the Treaty.

Mr. Mason: Mr. Mason  rose——

Mr. Wood: I am sorry, I cannot give way now.
I think that the Coal Board under the energetic and inspired leadership of Lord Robens is trying to build what will amount in a few years' time to a new industry. It is true that demand has been lower than before, but it is also true that the Board under Lord Robens is putting continual pressure downwards on costs in order to meet its objective. Some hon. Members have spoken with a certainty of gloom in the debate. I never speak in debate with either certainty of gloom or of brightness ahead. I am quite well aware that there is little certainty in this life and I have seen in my short time too many confident forecasts fade into oblivion to want to make any more.
I am sure, however, that the energy of reseandhers in coal, the willingness of the whole industry to develop new ideas and methods, the energy of sellers of coal, the vigour of leadership and, basic and indispensable, the industry and adaptability of those employed in coal mining will not be the weak links in the chain. I hope, therefore, that if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, as I am sure it will, it will also have expressed a message of encouragement and confidence in the Coal Board to continue in the years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Pensions (Increase) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to temporary advances to, and temporary borrowings by, the National Coal Board (in this Resolution referred to as "the Board"), it is expedient to authorise—

(a) such increases in the sums which by or under any enactment are to be or may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer as may result from provisions of the said Act of the present Session whereby the Minister of Power (in this Resolution referred to as "the Minister") may advance temporarily to the Board such sums as they may require to borrow temporarily from him for financing any temporary deficit of the Board on revenue account, and
(b) the charging on and issue out of the Consolidated Fund or payment into the Exchequer of such sums as may be required to be so charged, issued or paid in consequence of provisions of the said Act of the present Session whereby the Treasury may guarantee the repayment of, and the payment of any interest on, sums borrowed temporarily by the Board, otherwise than from the Minister, for financing any such deficit or otherwise for meeting their obligations and discharging their functions,

subject to the limitation that the aggregate amount outstanding in respect of the principal of sums borrowed, as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Resolution, shall not at any time exceed twenty million pounds.—[Mr.Barber.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 16th November].

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 10.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendment proposed: In page 6, line 41, to leave out from the second "the" to the end of line 43 and insert "1st July 1962".

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause.

10.2 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter): I think that, with admirable timing, the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) had just concluded his speech in moving the Amendment when the clock struck four on Friday afternoon. As he told us, the point in the Amendment is a short and simple one; it is a claim for retrospection in the benefits of the Bill back to 1st July. The point is a simple and clear one, but I think that the Committee will agree that there has to be a very strong case to support a claim for retrospection, and, although the hon. Member deployed his argument with his usual skill, I am bound to say that he did not make on my mind the impression that he had made out the sort of substantial case that is necessary if one is to make a case for retrospection.
There are great difficulties about it, and the first and most obvious one is the cost. As we may discuss on a later Amendment, it is our hope that if the Committee and, later, the House are prepared to deal with the Bill tonight we may be able to bring it into force as from the beginning of next year. Therefore, if one is to bring the effective date back to 1st July the cost for that extra period will be about £11 million. That is a substantial figure, and of it—and I think that the Committee may attach importance to this—about £2½ million would fall on the local authorities.
I had, of course, some discussions with the local authorities, who bear some of the cost of the Measure, before the Bill was introduced. I certainly did not put to them any suggestion that they should bear a retrospective charge. Clearly, they have not made, and will not have been able to make, arrangements to bear any additional charge of this nature between 1st July and the end of the year. Therefore, the Committee must weigh seriously the difficulty in which they would be placed by this additional and unexpected expenditure.
There is no case whatever for retrospection on grounds either of delay in introducing or pushing forward with the Bill or on grounds of movements of the index of retail prices. We have fully carried out the undertaking that I gave at this Box on 17th July to introduce the


Bill early in the Session. That is why we have it at this stage, so early in the present Session. As to price changes, I am glad to say that they have been favourable. When I made my statement on 17th July, the latest index of retail prices was 120·4. The latest figure now, as the House knows tonight, is 119·1.
The hon. Member for Sowerby based a little of his case for retrospection on the fact that I made a statement on 17th July. That does not establish any argument for retrospection.

Mr. Houghton: The Minister keeps repeating the word "retrospection". The Amendment asks him to pay the bill from the date when he said it was due.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, however ingeniously it is put, I did not say that the Bill was due. I said the exact contrary. I said that in the next Session—that is, this Session—I would introduce a Bill to do this. I did not say that the Bill was due.
As I was saying when the hon. Member tried to help me, he based a certain amount of his argument on the fact that I made a statement. I made it for the good and simple constitutional reason that when a Government has made up its mind about something, it is a good thing to tell the House of Commons at the earliest possible date. That is a very good principle. I made it clear, however, that we should be introducing a Bill this Session, not in the last Session.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Would it not be fair to assume that when a Minister goes to the trouble of making a statement of the importance of the one made by the right hon. Gentleman, it was because it had been recognised that there was an urgent need?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think so. The statement was made because we had made up our minds. I hope the Committee will agree that when the Government have made up their minds about a matter of public importance, there is a certain amount to be said for telling the House of Commons. Indeed, I have often heard complaint in the contrary sense. Had we waited until the Recess and made an announcement then, no one would have been more

indignant than the hon. Member for Sowerby that I had not made the statement to the House of Commons. Therefore, there is nothing in that argument.
Then there is a purely practical point. What we are trying to do in the Bill is to put up substantially the rate of pension which will be paid to former servants of the State to enable them to live a little more comfortably. If we have a retrospective provision of this sort, we do not affect the date from which people actually get an increase. We do something quite different; we give them a lump sum payment calculated over a number of months from the date from which, theoretically, they would have had the pension.
I very much doubt whether the right course in a matter of this kind is to include lump sum payments. What we are trying to do is to increase the current payments on which the former servants of the public live, not to give them a lump sum bonus based upon an arbitrary date which the hon. Member for Sowerby has suggested.
Therefore, I cannot recommend acceptance of the Amendment. It is not a sensible use of £11 million of public money to give a lump sum payment when we put the Bill into operation, because of a notional attachment of an increase to a date at which that increase was not, and indeed could not have been, payable. Therefore, although the hon. Member has put his case with his usual persuasiveness, I cannot recommend the Committee to accept it.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I had not intended to rise, but the right hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) had not put the case in his usual persuasiveness.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I said that he did put it with his usual persuasiveness, but that it was so bad a case that it did not persuade.

Mr. Williams: I accept that correction. May I now address my comments to the right hon. Gentleman's speech? He has certainly not used the same logic for which he is famous in the House and was very famous when be was in opposition.
There are two points that I want to make. First, I return to the point that


I made on the question of this very important statement. The pensioners in the Civil Service assumed that, after a close survey of their position and the hardships that were accruing to them, the Government thought it sufficiently urgent and important to make a pronounced declaration at that time. It is not unreasonable to assume from that and to deduce that in the hearts and minds of these men and women there arose the idea that the right hon. Gentleman would not only treat their case with urgency, but would recognise the hardship from the time when he had seen the light.
The right hon. Gentleman advanced a most queer argument tonight. He said that it does not matter whether we have a case or not, that it does not matter how sound the argument is today, that it does not matter how much the need of these people was from July until now—it is a monstrous idea to make a lump sum payment to these people. There is nothing monstrous, nothing inconsistent and nothing that we have not precedents for in these lump sum payments. It has always happened that way. If anything is back-dated a lump sum is, in many cases, automatically involved. I have had many awards in which there have been lump sums in addition to the increases in the scales of pay of the various grades. There is nothing monstrous about the idea that these people should have £11 million in the form of grants and not weekly increases.
If my argument is sound and there was hardship before is it not reasonable to assume that these people went without many things that they would have got if they had had the resources to go for them. Taking that line of argument, what is wrong in the Government making up to those people, who have been quite a long time waiting for increases in their pensions, for the leeway that has occurred concerning their increases? I am surprised that with his logical mind, the right hon. Gentleman put such an illogical argument. Looking round the House, hon. Members even behind him can hardly understand why he made that statement this evening, and I hope that he will have second thoughts and concede the points that we are making in the Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. E. C. Redhead: I find it very difficult to reconcile the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to this Amendment with the claim which he has so constantly reiterated in respect of the Bill, and the Financial Secretary has also echoed the view, that this is a generous It has been acknowledged, and I freely repeat it, that the Bill is an advance on its predecessors. But I think that the term "generosity" is an overstatement. The Bill does not, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, give to public service pensioners, particularly those longest retired, anything like a reasonable degree of compensation for the loss in value of their pensions. Every Amendment that we have proposed so far, and which has been designed to improve that situation, has been resisted by the Chief Secretary.
If his mood and intention are really those of generosity, why does he resist this Amendment, for which I contend, notwithstanding what he has said, that there is a good case in justice and equity? He has tried to suggest that his announcement on 17th July was no more than a courtesy to the House. Its very unprecedented nature suggests that there was a much firmer reason behind it than that.
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that in making this announcement in these positive terms he must have been satisfied then that the circumstances justified it, that the changes which had occurred since the 1959 Act as of that date warranted the Measure now before us. Indeed, I suggest that the Bill was all ready in draft substantially in its present form, for he will remember that he promised in the announcement that the Measure would be not less generous than the 1959 Act. Why then defer its implementation until the 1st January, 1963, which we understand to be the present aim and intention of the Government?
By reason of the fact that the Bill has been introduced so early in the Session and is being hurried through, it is reasonable to assume that, but for the intervention of the three months' Summer Recess, the Government, having made up their mind, would have introduced it at a much earlier date. It would, in fact, at the present pace of events, have been law and, indeed, would


have had a much earlier operative date than that which is now contemplated.
Why should the pensioners be denied for six months the benefits which were recognised to be due in July? There is no logic in this. Far less is there any aspect of generosity. What we are asking for is in no way inconsistent with the usual practice which operates in a very considerable area of public service in respect of revisions of pay, which are quite frequently backdated to the point at which it is agreed that the circumstances justified the revision even though the decision is not reached until some months later.
Pensioners already suffer a serious disadvantage in this respect compared with those still in service, for they have no regular channel for submitting their claims, no recognised means of communication, no organisation recognised as a negotiating body on their behalf, and no standard practice by which pensions can be reviewed. They are wholly dependent on enlisting the sympathy of hon. Members of the House and on agitation and representation by seeking to build up pressure on the Government until the latter, under the weight of that pressure, or for reasons of expediency, feel compelled to do something, belatedly and usually inadequately.
Why should pensioners be put to the further disadvantage of having in this instance to wait until next January for improvements which the Government thought to be justified last July? I hope that, even at this stage, if the right hon. Gentleman is moved by feelings of generosity he will recognise in this Amendment an opportunity to give exercise to his intention of generosity. I assure him that, whatever be the measure of cost, the measure of good will which he will gain by accepting the Amendment and the opportunity to make some further redress to those who have suffered unduly long by having the value of their pensions debased by the depreciation in money values will be greater. I beg him even now to give some consideration to agreeing if not to the full effect of the Amendment, at least to some measure of retrospection which will take account of what was in the minds of the Government last July and which will take account of what I believe to be the claims of justice.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) has tried to attach an argument for this Amendment to my statement of 17th July. I have, therefore, sent for a copy of my statement and I have again read it and the supplementary questions which were put to it. There is a very clear indication that the Amendment is an afterthought on the part of hon. Members opposite in the fact that none of the supplementary questions, including those of the hon. Member for Sowell-by (Mr. Houghton), on 17th July suggested for a moment that this provision should be made retrospective.
I made a clear statement that we would introduce a Bill in the new Session, and we have implemented that to the full by introducing it as one of the earliest Measures of the Session. If the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West looks at his own supplementary question, or at my statement, or at the discussion which took place on 17th July, he will see that there was really not the faintest suggestion by any hon. Member on either side of the House that this Measure Should be made retrospective, or that my statement gave any indication whatever that that was the intention.
As regards the hon. Gentleman's observations that the Bill must have been drafted by then, I think that, on reflection, he will recall that I then pointed out that the subject of overseas pensioners was at the stage of the operation of a committee, appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, which was investigating how this should be done. All that I could say on 17th July was that we hoped and, indeed, expected that the committee's report would be available, so that if it did recommend anything to help these pensioners, we should be able to deal with them in the Bill, as we are now doing.
Really, the hon. Gentleman's argument turned very substantially on two points on which I wholly disagree. One was that the Bill was late. He said that the pensioners had waited unduly long. But that is not true. The gap between the dates when we hope to operate the Bill and the operation of the previous one, three years and five month's, is exactly the same as that between the previous


Measure and its predecessor. When he says that it is so inadequate that it has to be extended backwards, really he is allowing a little bias to disturb his normally very clear judgment of these things.
As I said on Second Reading, the total additional provision made for pensioners by the Bill is approximately twice—at £22 million—that made by any previous Pensions (Increase) Measure—the last two were about £11 million while others before that, including that of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, were smaller. The argument that because the Measure is belated and inadequate it must be made retrospective does not stand up, because on fair consideration of the facts it can be seen that it is not belated and is very far from being inadequate.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I cannot let all that pass without a word in reply. The right hon Gentleman has been very free with his "reallys" and I say, "Really, he must not chide me with not having raised the question of the effective date when putting supplementary questions to his statement in July". I was pressing the right hon. Gentleman to say what the Bill was to contain. At that stage, that was more important than the effective date. Had I pressed the question of the effective date, the right hon. Gentleman would have suggested that I had better wait and see what was in the Bill before asking a date from which it could operate.
The right hon. Gentleman is so resourceful that we cannot pin him down. He jumps about all over the place. He throws back at one the arguments which one has not used. He chides one with omissions which were not omissions. At the time I was concentrating on more important matters.
The real truth of why the right hon. Gentleman made his statement in July is that the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) both declined to join the Government unless they were assured that a statement of this kind would be made. It is not correct to say that the statement was made when the Government had made up their minds. The announcement was

made when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had made up the Government's mind for them. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. He had to appease the discontent on his own side, and that is why he made the announcement.
I will not go into all the arguments about lump sums. If something is backdated, it is recompense for people having waited longer than they should have. To describe it as a lump sum is quite inaccurate. However, we cannot go on flogging this question of the effective date. We have had the answer. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are not apparently as moved as we are about this and we shall have to allow the Committee to make a decision on the matter. It is regrettable, because we have gone through this Bill with patience and with reasonableness. We have deployed arguments on one or two matters which have not been received favourably, but we have done our best, and I rest content with that.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman's argument is valid, that this was an afterthought, that this request for retrospection was an afterthought, is there any less virtue in it? Is it not usually the case that an afterthought results from further consideration of a particular problem? What was the point of the right hon. Gentleman's argument?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman did not follow my argument before, I can only beg the Committee's forgiveness if I repeat it. His hon. Friends argued that because I made the statement on 17th July, that was an argument for relating back the benefits to the beginning of the month in which I made it. I should have thought it was relevant, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think it was relevant, to the suggestion that my making the statement in some way or other supported their arguments and raised expectations of this, that when I made the statement no hon. Member made this suggestion at all. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will think that out.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not want to delay the Committee for very long, but when the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement nobody on either side


knew what his intentions were. I therefore do not see any validity in his arguments.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Redhead: I do not want to detain the Committee, but as regards the definition of the appointed day it is specified that this means
the earliest day after the passing of this Act which is the first day of a calendar month.
We understood that it was the Government's intention and desire that the Bill should become operative as from 1st January. I was debarred from moving an Amendment which sought to define it in more precise terms. The proceedings on the Bill have been conducted with the expectation that 1st January would be the operative date, and I would be glad to know whether the Government still intend to ensure that that is the operative date.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can give that assurance. The provision in the Bill is as the hon. Member stated, the definition of the appointed day being in Clause 10:
the earliest day after the passing of this Act which is the first day of a calendar month".
If the House is good enough to conclude its consideration of the Bill tonight I have every reason to believe we can get it to another place and submit it for the Royal Assent during December, in which case, without further ado, the provision of the Bill to which I have referred would bring it into operation on 1st January next.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(PENSIONS REVIEW BOARD.)

(1) Within three months of the appointed day the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall appoint a Pensions Review Board which shall consist of five members.

(2) (a) For the calendar year one thousand nine hundred and sixty three, and for each second succeeding year, the Pensions Review Board shall submit to Parliament a report relating to pensions payable to each class of persons to which this Act applies and also relating to pensions payable to all pensioners of the Armed Forces and their widows to whom increases in pension are payable by Prerogative Instruments after the appointed day;

(b) for each such calendar year as is referred to in subsection (a) of this section the Cost of Living Advisory Committee shall, by reference to the normal expenditure of persons in the United Kingdom over the age of sixty years, compute for use by the Pensions Review Board in the preparation of the report referred to in the said subsection a special index of retail prices, to be known as the "Pensioners' Index of Retail Prices";

(c) every such report as is mentioned in subsection (a) of this section shall contain such recommendations for increases and adjustments in the pensions to which it refers as in the opinion of the Pensions Review Board are necessary to take into account the following factors:

(i) in relation to any particular class of persons such as is referred to in subsection (a) of this section, any difference in the amounts of pensions payable to different members of the said class which is solely attributable to a difference in time between the dates on which the pensions first became payable as aforesaid;
(ii) any variation in the Pensioners' Index of Retail Prices since the last such report;
(iii) any other matter, which in the opinion of the Board, is relevant to the amount of the pension payable to the members of any such class as is mentioned in subsection (a) of this section.—[Mr. Wade.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Donald Wade: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Clause is to provide for the carrying out of a biennial review. It is an adaptation of the provisions of a Private Member's Bill which I introduced in the last Session—on 27th March of this year. The Bill, which I introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule, was unopposed. I hope that that indicates that it had general

support, although I regret to say that at a later stage it was obstructed by the Government and was eventually killed.
The proposals in this Clause, which are on similar lines to those in the Bill, have a wide measure of support from various pasts of the House. I believe that many hon. Members realise that the way in which these Pensions (Increase) Bills come about, rather haphazardly, is not entirely satisfactory.
I should first explain that the Clause applies both to the pensions of former members of the Armed Forces and their widows—which do not come into the Bill but are referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum—and also to public service pensions. In both cases there is a real need for a more objective test, and there is a growing recognition of this need.
In the Second Reading debate, when referring to the public service pensioners, the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), who speaks with authority on the subject, had some interesting observations to make. He said:
…there are good reasons for thinking that the present system which we have enshrined, if that is the right word, in public servants pensions Bills is not a satisfactory one and that we ought to give very careful consideration"—
and then he made some reference to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) who had spoken on similar lines—
to the possibility of some more satisfactory arrangements.
Then, when referring to the existing method, he said:
One might describe it as a fire brigade method; an ad hoc method; a hit-and-miss method. Is it not time that we considered whether it is possible to devise some proper businesslike system which will provide for periodic reviews when necessary by some appropriate machinery of a suitable character applying recognised criteria?
In winding up the debate the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) also referred to the subject. He said:
I said in a previous debate that there was something repugnant in the spectacle of pensioners of any category having to come from time to time virtually cap in hand to plead for some measure of justice and relief, and devoid of any stronger means of pressing their claims, having to depend upon the degree of sympathy which they could enlist in this House to exert pressure upon the Government who eventually, reluctantly and inadequately


responded with some small grain of comfort, the value of which began to erode from the very moment at which it was conceded.
Later he called for a review at regular periodic intervals, and said:
A biennial review has been suggested and would seem to be an appropriate one."— [OFFICIAL RFPORT, 9th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 1339–98]
This Clause is an attempt to translate into practical terms the sentiments expressed in various quarters. I acknowledge that it does not go so far as some would wish. It does not go as far as I would wish, but I have deliberately drafted it in such a way as will provide the greatest possible chance of it being accepted by the Government, and that is what I am hoping for.
The Government have already turned down the principle of parity which has been advanced with great force by Sir Gerald Gibb and others; the principle that if two public servants retire at the same age, having reached the same position and having had the same responsibilities, they should receive the same pension. I also understand that the Government will not accept the principle of an automatic escalator. Some of the societies which have written to me are much in favour of an automatic escalator. It is the view of N.A.L.G.O. But failing that, they would support the idea of a regular review, at any rate as a first step.
I wish to make clear that the review I am advocating does not rule out the opportunity of parity or an automatic escalator. Parliament can still adopt either of those principles. While the position would remain open, this review would ensure that the subject was brought before Parliament at regular intervals of two years. I believe that that has the support of many influential bodies representing a great number of pensioners of various categories.
By way of a preface to an outline of the objects of the Clause may I say something which has been said many times, and heard on many occasions by occupants of the Treasury Bench? I am not asking that every point of detail in the Clause be accepted. It may well be that there is some criticism over points of detail. It is the principle with which I am primarily concerned. The

object of the Clause is first to set up a Pensions Review Board. This is to be done within three months of the appointed day. I suggest that there should be five members although there is no magic about that figure. I think that five members would be a suitable number.
In subsection (2, a) there is a provision that the first report should be completed by the end of 1963. I think that a reasonable request. Subsequent reports could be made every two years. Subsection (2, a) defines the class of persons to which this should apply. The intention is that it should cover all public service pensioners, and those who have served in the Armed Forces, and their widows who come under the Prerogative Instruments.
I am not entirely happy about the wording of the Clause. But if the Government are prepared to accept it in principle, I have no doubt that they could assist over the actual wording of the definition.
Subsection (2, b) proposes that the Cost of Living Advisory Committee should provide a special cost of living index for the benefit of the Pensions Review Board. This would be the Pensioners' Index of Retail Prices.
The Cost of Living Advisory Committee does very important and valuable work, and it seems appropriate that it should be asked to produce this special index for the elderly. The ordinary index, which has been referred to many times in our debates on the Bill, is not entirely satisfactory as a test of the cost of living of the elderly. For example, one would not regard motor scooters and perambulators as part of the normal annual expenditure of an elderly retired person.
It would be helpful, as one of the criteria, to have this special cost of living index, but that alone would not be sufficient. It is sometimes contended that to relate these pensions solely to cost of living is not satisfactory, because at the particular time when an increase is to take place the cost of living may not have been going up. I recognise that, but under these proposals there would be at least two criteria—one, the special cost of living index, and the other a comparison between the original


pension, plus increases, with the present or current pension of persons retiring from the same position.
In addition, the board would be entiled to bring forward any other relevant information it thought fit. What I have in mind is that the board would select a number of representative categories of pensioners and, at the conclusion of its report, would indicate the figures in four columns. The first column would show the original pension—I suggest that it might go back as far as 1935, but I have an open mind on that. The second column would show the increases, in the third there would be the special cost of living index, and the fourth would show the current pension. Once this procedure had started it would be comparatively simple to keep it up to date, and we should get a very much clearer picture than we now have.
I think that such a procedure would bring to light many anomalies and inequalities. We are here dealing with quite a wide range of pensioners—retired postmen, local government officers, civil servants, teachers, members of all ranks of the Armed Forces, and their widows. Some of the most striking cases of hardship occur among the widows of members of the Armed Forces. There is that extraordinary differentiation between what are known as existing widows and future widows. Those who lost their husbands before 4th November, 1958, are treated quite differently from those whose husbands died later.
That is quite anomalous, but I understand that it will still remain when the new provisions dealing with the Forces are introduced. I have a letter on that subject from the general secretary of the Officers' Pensions Society, in which he says:
Even with the increases which are going to be awarded, and the £20 for those over 70, many will still be on National Assistance.
I therefore suggest that the Pensions Review Board should collect this information and produce a report, which might be published as a White Paper, and which would include its recommendations. Parliament would then have to face up to this subject every two years.
I have considered possible objections. I have studied very carefully the

Financial Secretary's reply in the Second Reading debate. I am giving what I hope is a précis of his argument. As I understood it, there were two points. First, if there were a regular review it would be in some way a derogation from the authority of Parliament. My answer to that is that the recommendations made by the Pensions Review Board would not be mandatory.
10.45 p.m.
Secondly, it was argued by the Financial Secretary that there is some rigidity where increases are related solely to the cost of living. I have dealt with that point and shown that under my proposals there would not be rigidity. There would be at least two criteria by which to judge what the proper increases should be.
There is one other general objection which I have met. It is argued that, if we are so concerned about public service pensioners, what about other pensioners; ought we not to be doing something about them? There is a very simple reply. A number of public service pensioners, particularly some of the most elderly, are in receipt of no other form of relief. Many of them are not entitled to old-age pensions. The pension which they receive, even with increases, has not kept pace with the rise in the cost of living. It is right that we should be concerned with the welfare of public service pensioners.
There is a more important point. If the principle of the biennial review were adopted, it could be applied to a wider field of pensions. I believe that it would benefit all pensioners. It is true that the review might be of a somewhat different nature. I have referred to the four columns. In the fourth column one could not very well include "current pensions". Instead, one would have to have some assessment of the rise in national prosperity in which one would wish all pensioners to share. That is not impossible. I am dealing with this in very general terms because I do not want to stray beyond the Clause. I emphasise that there is no conflict of loyalty. The fact that we are concerned about public service pensioners does not mean that we are not concerned about other pensioners. Surely the plight of all these pensioners should not be dependent on


the amount of pressure that is exerted on the Government at any one time or on such extraneous circumstances as the approach of a General Election. That is wrong.
In conclusion, I should like to quote from my own speech. I do not often inflict that on the House. In introducing my Private Member's Bill I said this:
Hon. Members are in real difficulty. There are so many causes which are brought to their notice. An appeal may be launched on a subject such as this. Motions are tabled and speeches made, and then, perhaps, something is done, possibly inadequately, by the Government and the whole subject then passes from the Parliamentary limelight into the shadows. It does not follow, however, that the anomalies have all been remedied, or that others will not arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March 1962; Vol. 656, c. 1025–26.]
That is the situation which we have reached today. Very soon the Bill will become law, but it may then pass out of the Parliamentary limelight. Anomalies will still remain and the circumstances may he forgotten. It is to prevent that that I ask for this periodical review, this review every two years. I am not asking the Government to accept every jot and tittle for the wording of the Clause. I ask for it to be accepted in principle. I ask for a firm assurance that the principle of a periodical review will be accepted by the Government. I shall not rest content with anything less than that.

Dame Irene Ward: I am very interested indeed in the new Clause. Although I agree that the wording of it could, perhaps, be improved, I am absolutely certain that the principle underlying it is most important. It is one which the Government should accept. I wish, first, to quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT what was said by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on Second Reading, because this is extremely interesting. He said:
At first sight, coming somewhat new to this matter, I think that this idea has considerable attractions.
That is a move in the right direction. If we really offer an attraction to the Financial Secretary I feel that we are making quite a good step forward. He continued later:
…even if there is no relevant precedent for a review of civil public service pensions

after specified and fixed intervals, that does not conclude the matter. What really matters is the merits of the case.
That really is a wonderful assertion because I cannot think of any case which has better merits. Because Treasury Ministers must find an objection, he went on to say:
The main objection to such a review is that it would import a rigidity into the procedure which, at the end of the day, would not be in the interests of the pensioners themselves. I will explain why.
Under the existing procedure the Government keep the position of public service pensioners under review, and can intervene at any time with a measure of relief without having to wait for a fixed and specific date to arrive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 1405–6.]
Of all the cynical observations I have ever heard from any Treasury Minister, that is beyond description. Indeed, at this late hour I must try to restrain my language.
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had been busy using as an argument on a previous Amendment that it was three years and five months to the day that the new Pensions (Increase) Bill was to become law. Meanwhile, if I had any faith at all in what the Financial Secretary was trying to tell us—that we need not accept the proposed new Clause, that we could be certain that these public service pensioners and the pensioners of the armed Services would be more sympathetically dealt with by the Treasury and Parliament than under the review procedure proposed in the Clause—I would not waste my time making a speech because I would say, "Thank God. At last we have got some sense into the Treasury."
But it does not mean that at all. I challenge the Treasury Ministers to set out in HANSARD from the date of the last Pensions (Increase) Bill the number of Questions, speeches, Ten-Minute Bills and Motions which have been addressed to the Government in the hope of trying to get them to deal with the eroded pensions of those who are covered by the Bill. If they did that it would take up several pages of HANSARD.
As I said, the statement of the Financial Secretary, from which I quoted, represented the most cynical comment that it has been my ill fortune to hear in all the years I have been in the House of Commons. Regarding "rigidity"


about which he spoke, the Financial Secretary as an individual is extremely charming. He is also extremely young. He has not lived as long as a great many people and he is probably unaware that the basic widow's pension has not altered for a hundred years. Yet Parliament has survived all this time and nobody has done anything about it.
Unless we have a review of some kind, or some assurance from Treasury Ministers, the public service pensioners and the pensioners of the Armed Forces of the Crown will be dependent upon the executive. The Financial Secretary spoke in his usual fluent, delightful and vigorous way but he made his statement in July because almost the whole House was behind the Motion moved at that time and the House said that something had to be done. He made that statement because tempers were well up in the House after we had been arguing for nearly three years that the position of these pensioners was becoming worse.
I agree absolutely with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). It is most unfair to have the position of public service pensioners and pensioners of the Armed Forces covered by the same cost of living index that applies to other people. I make the point that I have made before in arguing very ineffectively. I do not think I am ever effective. I never seem to get my way. It takes ten years at least to win a battle, and some battles one never wins at all. I shall be dead before some of them are won.
I make the point again that it is the cost of heating, lighting, food, rates and rents that goes up for these people. They are not covered by what are called consumer durables in the cost of living index, whatever they may mean. I suppose they mean prams and other things to which reference has been made. It is absolutely intolerable that these people should be dependent upon the working up of a Parliamentary agitation. I do not trust the Treasury one little bit. I cannot for the life of me see why we cannot arrive at some suitable arrangement.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has argued this point very forcibly. I only wish he had argued it when he was a member of the Government. He may have done so and been turned down.

I do not know. But the time has come when Parliament should have the right to assert what it wants. There is no use having a Parliamentary democracy if occasionally we cannot have our own way. Even if the new Clause is not drafted in terms acceptable to the Minister—and I can hear him in my mind talking of the weaknesses of the Clause—I hope that we shall not have the same dreary arguments advanced again and that my right hon. Friend will not turn down these widows who had no increase in their basic pensions for a hundred years until 1952 and received one then only because food subsidies had been reduced.
If this idea was attractive to the Financial Secretary only a fortnight ago, it must remain attractive today. He could not accept an Amendment earlier because we have a Pensions (Increase) Bill every three years and five months, but he cannot repeat that argument now when we say that this matter should be kept under review. I will not detain the House any longer, but I feel very strongly on this matter and no ordinary speech will satisfy me if my right hon. Friend does not feel favourably inclined towards accepting the new Clause.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The proposed new Clause arises from the views expressed on both sides by almost everyone who spoke on Second Reading. There was a general feeling that this should be the last Pensions (Increase) Bill of its kind, that we should get off this dreary treadmill under which public service pensioners have to await a succession of Bills of this kind coming before the House and that we should get away from the process whereby, as soon as one Bill is safely passed and victory is won, all the pensioners' organisations have to start once again lobbying Members of Parliament or pressing the Government for the next Bill in two, three or four years' time. Every hon. Member, therefore, is bound to feel initial sympathy for the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) in the new Clause.
I doubt, however, whether the Clause does what most hon. Members, on both sides, urged the Government to try to do on Second Reading. It does not take the increases in public service pensions outside the legislative process. It does


not take them off the House of Commons treadmill, which was my main motive and that of others who spoke in the debate.
The Clause has considerable merits. It would provide the House of Commons, when the next Pensions (Increase) Bill comes before it, with extremely authoritative ammunition to throw at whoever occupies the Treasury Bench on that occasion. That, however, is a different point and not the really important one which we had in mind. Therefore, I would rather see the Government heed the points that were made during Second Reading, go away, think about them and consult the various organisations who have an interest in these matters and try to come out with the kind of proposals outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), which would enable the House of Commons to dispense with having to deal with this matter at regular intervals as the years go by.
I agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, that the Clause does not go as far in dealing with the pensions problem as many of us would like. I am still substantially attracted to seeing a society in which the pensions and superannuation problem is finally dealt with on the principle of parity so that the pension somebody earns during his working life not merely keeps up with the rise in prices after his retirement but keeps in step with the earnings of those still in work doing the kind of job that a pensioner did while he was still part of the working community.
As I said to the Minister on Second Reading, however, I agree that this cannot be done for the public service pensioner in isolation. Public service pensioners are a special group in this problem, because the Government can use them to set an example, to blaze a trail, to give a lead to other people in pensions. But before one could aim for the general principle of parity being accepted, one would need to seek to do this for the whole range of people in retirement.
I suppose that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West is as conscious as anybody else that the kind of interesting and useful proposals which he puts forward for a special cost of living index for pensioners should be applied equally to the general body of people on retire-

ment pensions, most of whom are in an even more difficult position than the public service pensioner.
Although I find much merit in the Clause, I suggest that for these reasons it would be better if the matter were dealt with by the Government considering the unanimous view of the House, consulting the interested organisations and then bringing forward more detailed and final proposals than can be put in a Clause of this nature.

Sir Lionel Heald: I am in the pleasant position of agreeing substantially with what has been said by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), a position I have not found myself in on previous occasions. I am obliged also to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) for what he kindly said about me and for his attempt to carry into practical effect the suggestions I have made on previous occasions. But I cannot support the detailed method he suggests, and I think it is only right to recognise that he himself appeared to be saying that he was not suggesting that this Clause could be put into operation as it stands. I do not intend to go into details, because certain criticisms have already been made and I should be surprised if my right hon. Friend did not make more.
It would be unfortunate if the debate on this very valuable Clause put forward for discussion purposes were to deteriorate into discussion on detail and then the subject were to disappear squib-like after my right hon. Friend has produced a number of detailed objections. That would be a dangerous thing. We are all concerned with the fact that, on the Second Reading, there was a remarkable consensus in the House that a more satisfactory and permanent arrangement must be seriously considered by the Government.
With all friendliness, I am bound to say that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary did not pay very much more than lip-service to that in his reply. He was good enough to say that all that had been said would be considered. But that is not a very extensive commitment because one rather hopes that everything said in a debate is always considered. On this occasion we want something rather more than that.
We want an assurance that the file is not put away in a cupboard with a sigh of relief, "Thank goodness! Now we have another three years and five months before we need bother with that again." If we could conclude the Committee stage on a note of real hope that the matter is to be considered seriously by the Government, we should all feel that something really worthwhile had been achieved.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I do not think that one should make apologies for detaining the Committee on this very important matter. After all, the pensioners we are discussing have had to wait three years and five months. One of the penances which the Front Bench must bear is listening to long speeches from various hon. Members, including the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who spoke so eloquently, as she always does on this subject. I hope that when the time comes she will allow her heart to guide her feet into the right Lobby.
This Bill does not go to the heart of the problem because, as many hon. Members have already said, the increases provided under it will be continually eroded by the rise in the cast of living, as increases under previous Acts have been eroded. It is time that we got round to thinking of a more permanent solution to the problem. Although the new Clause does not do more than provide a first step in this process, it would ultimately pave the way for the automatic escalator Which my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) wants.
This would do two things, both of them good. First, it would take the whole subject of public service pensions outside the arena of politics. This is a view of the subject which public service pensioners thoroughly endorse. We should endorse it, too, because it is entirely wrong for anybody to make political capital out of the hardships of these pensioners. We do not like doing so and we should be only too pleased if we did not have to discuss this matter in the House of Commons, and it should be taken outside. What is not provided by the new Clause and I men-

tion it only to illustrate that it may provide the first step in the process of getting towards such an automatic escalator.
Secondly, it would also be a good thing because it would avoid having to take up Parliamentary time, as at the moment and as we have done so many times. This could all be done outside Parliament. I do not subscribe to the argument 'that it would be a derogation of Parliament's authority, because there are many things which are decided outside the House of Commons, and quite properly so, and this should be one of them.
A biennial review would command the wholehearted support of Civil Service pensioners themselves. I quote from a letter from the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council:
Successive Governments have found it necessary to legislate for Pension Increases and there will have been seven Acts between 1944 and 1962, inclusive. On every occasion the Acts have been preceded by intensive lobbying and campaigning. The Staff Side believe that those who have given long service to the State ought not to have their standard of living in retirement dependent on the out-come of activity by pressure groups. The Staff Side very much hope that the Government can be persuaded to give an undertaking that pensions will be reviewed biennially.
That is what we are asking and I hope that the Chief Secretary will say that that is his intention.
I should like to quote a brief extract from the Civil Service Pensioner, which is the journal of the Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance and which amplifies the letter which I have just quoted. It says:
As the older pensioners know from bitter experience, the benefits provided by the Acts of 1944, 1947, 1952 and 1956 proved to be ephemeral. They were wiped out by the subsequent falls in the purchasing power of the currency.
If we go on as now, the same will happen to the 1962 increase. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that he will accept the principle if not the detail of the new Clause.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary may remember that on Second Reading I interrupted him to ask what would be the cost of bringing about parity, and he said that it would be £90 million,


which is a very large sum of money. In rejecting the new Clause, as I feel he must because of its drafting, will he give some indication that the Government intend to move towards parity before they start putting up later pensions? There is still so much leeway to be made up by the older pensioners before we start increasing the present rate of pensions that we ought first to dedicate ourselves to getting nearer to parity for those who are already pensioners before we start increasing the pensions of those who are coming into the Civil Service, or the other public services.
I know that this is a major task, but it is very important that we should bear in mind that one of the greatest services we can render to pensioners is to ensure that inflation is kept well and truly under control. Obviously we do not want to increase the pensions bill so much that it accelerates inflation. But, because we are dealing with such a large sum of money, it is important that we should aim to ensure that those who have been left behind the greatest distance are allowed to catch up a great deal more before further increases are given under the terms of service of those coming into the Civil Service and the Armed Forces.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On an earlier Amendment the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) responded with some asperity to my opening observations that the Amendment was well-intentioned. He thought that that was rather discourteous. I must therefore forbear from addressing observations to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) but say, none the less, that I am glad that he put forward his proposal, and that he put it forward as he did, not as being of itself a specific proposal which really could be operated, but as a peg on which to hang a discussion on the lines of what was said on Second Reading.

Mr. Wade: I would not say that it could not be operated. In fact I think that it could. I am concerned that the Government should accept the principle, but if I were pressed on the point of the practicability of the new Clause, I should be prepared to argue that it would work.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad the hon. Gentleman said that, because it will force me to risk a rebuke from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) for being squid-like. I think that that was his observation, and I have since sent for the catalogue of the Natural History Museum so as to work out exactly what that is. But it will mean that I have to deal with the hon. Gentleman's proposal in substance, although I understood him and his hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to say, I thought with some fairness, that they saw limitations in this as a proposal and wished more to discuss the issues which arise on it. But I will pay attention to what the hon. Gentleman said, and certainly, as is my duty in the circumstances, seek to deal with the specific terms of the new Clause as well as with the wider issues which he and other hon. Members have attached to it.
My first point is to pick up what was said by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), who is no longer in his place. The essence of the discussion on Second Reading, from both sides of the Committee—and I was present throughout the Second Reading debate apart from a short interval for what the Royal Air Force would call landing to refuel and re-arm—was an expression of some dislike of the procedure which had been followed on this Measure and on its predecessors and in particular the need, as it was seen, for agitation and discussion by outside bodies and for subsequent legislation by this House.
The first point, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey have said, is that this proposal would not obviate that in any degree whatever. All that it would do would be to put, as it were, another link—the five more or less wise men of the Pensions Board—into the chain. It would still no doubt be the wish and desire of outside bodies, as in a free society they are entitled to do, to approach hon. Members. It would still be the view of hon. Members who felt strongly about this that they should indulge in the traditional and proper activity of harrying Ministers, and it still would be necessary for


Ministers, when convinced of the desirability of the move, to produce legislation, whether precisely on the lines of this Bill or not. Therefore, whatever may be the merits or demerits of the hon. Gentleman's proposal, it does not begin to meet the general point to which he referred and to which hon. Members devoted a good deal of the Second Reading debate.
In view of what the hon. Gentleman said, I should like, first, to isolate and deal with the specific proposals, and then come back, without straying beyond the bounds of order, to the broader issues which have been discussed.
I do not find this proposal at all attractive. I am not quite sure what these five men would have to do. The terms of reference proposed are extraordinarily vague and broad. Nor could anything such a body did absolve the House and the Government from their responsibility for our former employees; nor, equally, absolve us from our responsibility to the taxpayers, on whom we have to impose burdens in order to discharge our duty to our former employees. These are real considerations.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West said that this would ensure the matter being brought before Parliament every two years. I do not know where the hon. Member has been in the last two years, if he seriously thinks that his proposal is necessary in order to secure that. In truth, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) was much more on the ball when she challenged me, in her own inimitable style, to produce a report of the number of Motions, speeches and Questions put on this very subject. Whatever arguments there may be for the proposal, the idea that it is necessary to have it in order to secure that this matter comes before the House every two years does not seem to be a tenable one.
The point is that hon. Members—rightly, in my judgment; I have raised the question myself at another time, and fully appreciate the rightness of it—raise it far more frequently than every two years. There is no force whatever in the hon. Member's contention.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West) rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the hon. Member for Gloucester, East—

Mr. Loughlin: West.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I only hope that the hon. Member will not go west. I want to deal with the proposal of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, first. The pretension that this review by some outside and, in a technical sense, completely irresponsible body, would really be necessary to bring this matter before the House does not stand up.
Then there was the suggestion about an index. In a previous capacity I often listened with sympathy to criticisms made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the retail prices index in the context of very poor people. But this is not such a proposal; this is a proposal for an index—as I understand it—related to all people in the United Kingdom, rich and poor alike, who are over 60 years of age. I do not know whether this would produce anything very different from the retail prices index; I am not at all sure that it would. But what help would such an index give when we are dealing with pensioners some of whom are on very low levels of income and others on quite substantial ones?
What we are concerned with in the Bill—and what this Pensions Review Board would be concerned with—are the pensions not only of retired postmen and policemen but retired Permanent Secretaries. I do not believe that an index of the kind suggested, even if it differed from the retail price index—which I doubt, although I would want to go into the matter further before expressing a definite view—would be of very much help in deciding, at the same time and by the same criteria, what the rates of pension for a retired Permanent Secretary and a retired postman should be. Nor do I think that the element of rigidity which this would undoubtedly bring into the process would necessarily be helpful to the pensioners.
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary referred to this matter in the Second Reading debate, although it exposed him to my hon. Friend's criticisms. If we have a fixed biennial review by this outside body—a review that must take place automatically—it might well follow a


considerable period of stability of prices and moderation in increases of income. This hoard, in order to discharge its terms of reference, might make a number of recommendations, or none at all. Immediately afterwards there might be a slide in prices, and it might add to the complications of moving—and make it more difficult for a Government to move—if, only a few months before, there had been a report from this board of a negative character. The truth of the matter is that the time of these changes is often dictated by all sorts of circumstances—the movements of prices, and earnings and the rest—which will not necessarily fit into a rigid timetable. I am not criticising the period of two years as opposed to three years or five years or one year. I am doubting the validity of a rigid timetable of this sort.
The Committee may recall that the Insurance Act of 1946 contains a provision for a quinquennial review. I doubt whether many hon. Members will think that that has had the slightest effect on the level of benefits. Any given fixed time almost certainly does not come at what is the right time for a move. I was responsible for presenting one quinquennial review to the House, which, so far as I remember—I say it with all modesty—raised astonishingly little interest.

Mr. Houghton: Because nothing happened.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman has given me my case by saying just that. Nothing does happen as a result of these periodic automatic reviews. That is my point and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me to it with greater brevity than I have shown myself capable of.
May I come now to the broad issue to which I think that the Committee attaches some importance. I join in the tributes to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey for his experience and work in this sphere. He said that he was looking for what he described as a more permanent and satisfactory method of dealing with this matter. If I may be wholly negative for a moment, I hope that the Committee will feel that this proposal is not such a method. In parenthesis I should like lo quote some words on the general

subject from my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). During the war he said:
Committees which are advisers or consist of persons without administrative machines and Departments at their disposal and without responsibility for making good any decisions to which they come, are an encumbrance from which I am sedulously endeavouring to free our system.
The Committee could have identified the author had I not given his name from the force and clarity of the language.

Mr. Loughlin: Does that apply to "Neddy" and "Nicky"?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No. When I made that quotation I anticipated that some hon. Member might be so injudicious as to make that intervention and I am grateful to the hon. Member for enabling my forecast to be proved correct. They play a quite different role in advising on different matters, as the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Loughlin: The Minister is quibbling.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —if he would care to study the matter, would rapidly find out for himself.
The broad issue is a difficult one and I do not want the Committee to be under any illusion about this. If one rejects the idea of parity as I have said frankly that 1 do—I do not think that it is fair to the taxpayer or to the community as a whole—one has to exercise some judgment at some point between that and, as I said on Second Reading, the other extreme of saying that any help for these people is a matter for the General social services. One has to exercise that judgment on the basis of their difficult problems and sufferings and the extent to which it is right to relieve them at the expense of other people who may have problems and be suffering. No system of review which excludes both sides of the equation makes sense.
I would not claim, for that reason, that the present procedure is necessarily right. As we all appreciate, it causes difficulties and embarrassment and perhaps a certain waste of time on problems of one sort or another. But I can promise my right hon. and learned Friend and the Committee that I have taken note of the clear views expressed during


the Second Reading debate, and I will endeavour to find whether some improvement in our system is possible.
11.30 p.m.
At this stage, I cannot possibly foreshadow to the House whether that is so, and, if so, what shape it will have. I can only promise to attempt a task—let us be frank—which my predecessors have not succeeded in achieving, because it is a fact, as the Committee knows, that this procedure we are now following is that which has operated, not only since the war, but during the war, and twice after the war of 1914–18. It would, therefore, be a rash man—and, perhaps, somewhat dishonest to the Committee—who promised that he would be able to produce a better solution.
I am quite sure that this new Clause is not a better solution. With due respect—and I respect the motives with which it is brought forward—it would make the position worse. But that does not mean that I regard the position as satisfactory—I do not. I shall endeavour to find a better one, which will enable the consideration of all these very human and important matters to be a little more smooth and a little more effective, in some ways, than is the present procedure. I will try to do that, and I give that undertaking to the Committee.
In the meantime, I hope, as I say, that we may be able to put this Measure into operation. I hope, and believe, that it will go a long way to solving the personal problems of many of the people about whom we are concerned.

Mr. Houghton: The undertaking that the right hon. Gentleman has given will be welcome to both sides of the Committee. I think that it is a genuine undertaking, and I am sure that we can rely on the right hon. Gentleman to pursue it, and see what he can do. We are obliged to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) for giving us the opporunity, albeit at this late hour, of considering these important matters further before parting with the Bill, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is not the solution I would seek, and I do not think that it would have given satisfaction to all members of the Committee had the Chief Secretary said that he was prepared to accept this proposition.
The new Clause does not take the responsibility away from the House of Commons. We should have to look at the reports of this body when they were made, there might be differences of opinion between those who represent the interests of the pensioners and the recommendations of the committee or commission, and it might conceivably complicate rather than facilitate the consideration of the legitimate interests of the public service pensioners, although we can all join with the hon. Member for wanting something different and something better.
When I consulted the authorities on what might be in order in a new Clause to the Bill, I found, of course, that no new Clause that committed the Government and the House to future expenditure would be in order, and the hon. Member has had to frame his new Clause in such a way that there is no commitment in it at all, except to present a report, upon which the Government and the House would exercise their own judgment.
During Second Reading, and in the Committee last Friday, I put forward the definite hope—which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman's statement has to some extent met—that there will be discussions between the parties concerned in the hope of finding a better solution. The right hon. Gentleman has rejected the concept of parity, which is a short term for adjusting pensions already awarded to the level of those being currently granted for comparable status and length of service. If, however, those now serving in the public services expressed a strong desire to have this principle applied to their pensions when the time came—if, in other words, they were anxious that a much better solution should be written into the structure of their superannuation scheme on agreed terms—that might change the situation greatly. I have no wish to pre-judge that issue. It is for them to say, and decide on whatever terms might be on offer in return for such a fundamental change in superannuation arrangements.
I think we should give all concerned the opportunity. An interval will elapse before a further Bill can be introduced. There could conceivably be a change of Government, in which case I can safely promise that there will certainly be a


new initiative in this matter. In one way or another things might happen which would enable the House of Commons to consider this matter in more satisfactory form in due course.
In the meantime, my considered opinion is that it would be undesirable to impose at this stage the criteria, method and timing in the new Clause. Having expressed the hope that those concerned will get together and see if a better solution can be found, it is undesirable that we should then proceed to find a solution ourselves. I believe that the frequency of the review may not necessarily be the most important thing. I fully understood what I was saying when I interjected during the right hon. Gentleman's speech and said that on the quinquennial review of the National Insurance Scheme nothing happened. It is conceivable that nothing would happen after this. If the criteria are settled, the frequency of the review will probably take care of itself. If one is agreed on the factors to be taken into account, if certain changes have taken place a review falls due. If they have not taken place, a review has not fallen due. A review for review's sake, whether those changes have taken place or not, is not necessarily the best way of doing this job.
In that respect those bodies which have urged upon us that we should advocate a biennial review have perhaps put the cart before the horse. I should prefer that we should get a clearer understanding of the considerations to be taken into account in making the review and how far they are to operate automatically, how far specific known changes constitute ground for review. For example, it could be said—I do not advocate this, but it is a hypothesis—that when the Ministry of Labour's index of wages has moved so many points there are prima facie grounds for review. Then one waits until the movement has taken place to the specified extent before a review is undertaken, and that is not necessarily after the lapse of a given time. I am not advocating that as the criteria, but merely for the purpose of illustration.
If the Chief Secretary's undertaking comes to nil and if, for one reason or another, no better method is found, then Parliament will have to return to the

matter and probably take a hand in finding the solution. Meanwhile, I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West will not press the Clause to a Division. The united view of the House on Second Reading, and in Committee when discussing the various Clauses, has been unmistakably expressed. The Chief Secretary has acknowledged that he has noticed the mood of hon. Members and that is significant.
It would have been a different matter had the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West had the solution all tied up with red tape or whatever tape it is that the Liberal Party use for package deals. But we have not got that and there are flaws in the Clause, as the hon. Member will be the first to recognise. It is vague and I now point to one weakness in it. The Pensions Review Board must take into account
in relation to any particular class of persons such as is referred to in subsection (a) of this section, any difference in the amounts of pensions payable to different members of the said class which is solely attributable to a difference in time between the dates on which the pensions first became payable as aforesaid:
But it does not say where the datum line is to be. If any board must take into account the gap between the level of pensions granted in the past and the level currently awarded for the future, I should like to know how far the existing gap will be taken into account to begin with. That is an important consideration in this connection.
We are also getting mixed up with other interests and matters when we are asked to consider the creation of a Pensioners' Index of Retail Prices covering the whole of the country. Even if it covered public service pensioners there are obvious difficulties about it. Anyway, I am not too sure whether the retail price index is necessarily the right criteria. It depends on what basis one is to approach the question of the periodical adjustment of occupational pensions.
It is important to distinguish between occupational and National Insurance pensions. These are part of a long-term contract and the level at which they are to be maintained depends upon a clear understanding of the terms of the long-term contract. It is, therefore, important that those who are serving should take a positive interest in this matter, for it


is not solely a question for those who have already retired.
This brings me back to where I started. It is fundamental to the real solution of this problem that those who have yet to retire should be brought into the consideration of the conditions on which their own pensions may be adjusted when the time comes. That opens up some wide considerations which are of great importance to the interests concerned, but I do not think that the Chief Secretary will shrink from them and I hope that other people concerned will not shrink from them, because that is the way of finding a better solution.
If the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West presses the new Clause to a Division I cannot recommend my hon. Friends to support it. It is not that we are not in full sympathy with the whole idea of a more satisfactory review of pensions but that I think it would be unwise at this stage to seek to impose this solution when we have the Minister's undertaking that he will use all his endeavours and his resources, which are great indeed, to find a better solution.
I hope therefore that the Committee may pass on to the final stages of the Bill without disrupting what I think is the Committee's unity and our desire to have better arrangements made. In that way probably lies greater hope of a solution than if we press an unsatisfactory new Clause upon the Committee.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Loughlin: I cannot share the touching faith of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in the Minister's intentions and his promises. We have had so many promises of one kind or another from the Government Front Bench that I think most of us have long lost count of them by this time. I cannot go along with my hon. Friend in his examination of the technical difficulties of the Clause. All I can say is that there is an acceptance that time erodes pensions. The speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) dealt clearly with that point and therefore I need not indulge in too much reiteration.
The Clause seeks to set up an advisory board which will make biennial reviews.

It is true, as the Minister says, that it might not be desirable to have too many advisory committees with no administrative responsibilities. But the right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with his flippant brushing aside of the fact that the Government have begun a programme of setting up advisory committees without administrative responsibilities, which include the National Economic Development Council and the National Incomes Council. I do not want to add to review committees but we know that periodically in the House we are subjected to all forms of agitations and pressures from pensioners' associations. The value of the proposed Pensions Review Board would be that its findings would crystallise the grievances of pensioners at a given time.
It might be true, as the Minister said, that a review board might take a decision and because of the relative stability of prices would suggest that there was no case for an increase in pensions and within a short time prices might slide—by which I assume the right hon. Gentleman meant they might rise considerably—and consequently a case would arise. The right hon. Gentleman then said that the review board not having recommended an increase, although there was a change in the circumstances, the Government would have some difficulty in saying at that time that in view of the changed circumstances they would alter the pensions. That is absurd in the extreme, because if such a set of circumstances arose I feel sure that the House of Commons would readily grant to the Government the opportunity of redressing a situation which no one foresaw and which the review board certainly could not see when it considered the pensions position.
Both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby were able to show the defects in the Clause. I want the possibility of a review of pensions periodically and not have to wait, as the Minister said earlier on an Amendment, three years and five months after the introduction of the last pensions increase of this kind. It is essential to find a method of quicker reviews, particularly when many pensioners are feeling the pinch.
Even if there are defects in the Clause, in view of the complex Clauses


which we have had to deal with in various Bills presented by the Government in the last two years, on which some of us have enjoyed ourselves in Committee in asking explanations of the complexities, it should not be beyond the imagination of Parliamentary draftsmen so to draft a Clause incorporating the principle of the new Clause as to ensure that the Clause has teeth.
The right hon. Gentleman has come to the Box, as he does so often, in an admixture of blarney and flippancy and said that be has a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member who submits an Amendment or new Clause. If he has sympathy with the Clause, it would be quite possible for Parliamentary draftsmen to frame a Clause incorporating the desires of the Committee and the principle of the present one.
I have no faith in the right hon. Gentleman's promises. If hon. Members on the Government side want action of any kind on the issues with which we are dealing, the only course for them is to tie the right hon. Gentleman down to something and, if necessary, go into the Division Lobby in support of the Clause.

Mr. Wade: Like the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), I do not share the faith of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in Ministerial statements. Of course, there are difficulties in

framing a Clause of this nature when one does not have the aid of Government draftsmen, but that is not the point at issue. The real issue is, what will the Government do? I found the Minister's reply disappointing and, on this occasion, I found the observations of the hon. Member for Sowerby disappointing. It is not as if this were a new point which had not been raised before. It has been studied for some time. I like to think that the Government gave thought to it when I introduced my Bill during the last Session.

At this late hour, I do not propose to reply in detail to the Minister's arguments except to say that the Clause was framed in its present form partly in the light of the Government's rejection of the idea of the automatic escalator and also to point out that the Minister missed an important factor in the reviews, namely, the comparison between current pensions and pensions awarded in past years. The real issue, however, is what the Government will do. There is a matter of urgency here and the right hon. Gentleman's answer did not amount to anything like the firm assurance for which I was asking. In the circumstances, I cannot withdraw the Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3. Noes 73.

Division No. 6.]
AYES
[11.55 p.m


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:



Loughlin, Charles
Mr. Wade and Mr. Bowen.



Lubbock, Eric






NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian


Aitken, W. T.
Errington Sir Eric
McLaren, Martin


Allason, James
Farr, John
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Barber, Anthony
Finlay, Graeme
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Batsford, Brian
Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray


Biffen, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Black, Sir Cyril
Grant-Ferris, R.
Miscampbell, Norman


Bourne-Arton, A.
Green, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hastings, Stephen
Percival, Ian


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hendry, Forbes
Pitt, Dame Edith


Cooke, Robert
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Currie, G. B. H.
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Loveys, Walter H.
Temple, John M.




Tilney, John (Wavertree)
walker, Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Webster, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Turner, Colin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)



van straubenzee, w. R.
Wise, A. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Peel.

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

12.4 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I must, first, thank the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) for their courtesy and for the way in which they have handled our debates on the Bill. Both hon. Members play a prominent part in our discussions on the Finance Bill and I hope that this new air of sweet reasonableness augurs well for our debates next April.
Indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), have made contributions of which I can say that not one has sprung from any motive other than to do the right thing by public service pensioners.
If most hon. Members have asked that the Government should do more, that is not surprising, but we have been considering a Bill which is admitted on both sides to be, if not the most generous, the best ever, and when one takes into account the similar increase for the Armed Forces, the total cost will be more than £22 million.
While I am thanking all those who have taken part in our discussions, it might not be a bad thing also to thank the taxpayer who, at the end of the day, will have to foot the bill. But I do not believe that the taxpayer will begrudge the charge which is being made on him when it is realised that the Bill not only follows precedent in the provisions of Clause 1, but breaks new ground in two very important respects. First, in Clause 2, by directing the increases in that Clause to the older and smaller pensions, and, secondly, by providing for pension increases paid from the Exchequer for certain retired overseas officers.
I do not believe that the House would wish me to let this opportunity pass without also paying tribute to those officials not yet of pensionable age who have guided my right hon. Friend and myself through the labyrinthine structure of public service pensions.
Finally, before I sit down, I should like to correct the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) on one point. During our discussions in Committee he cited the case of an inspector of taxes who retired very early in life on grounds of ill-health, and he went on to tell the Committee that the gentleman concerned lived to be 90 only by doing no more work. I have since checked on the point made by the hon. Gentleman, and the gentleman concerned lived to be 101.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Houghton: I thought that there was something more remarkable about that inspector of taxes than reaching the age of 90, which in our family is comparatively young, because five members of my family have gone over 90, but nobody has gone over 100. This was a remarkable case, and I am sure that we are all glad to know that those who retire early enough from the Inland Revenue are assured of long life while those who stay on die at their desks.
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Financial Secretary for their courtesy and patience throughout all the stages of this Bill. It has been an experience in which hon. Members of good will on both sides have combined to impress the Government with a point of view which I hope they will be able to meet later.
In general, as I said on Second Reading, the Bill is the best of the Pensions (Increase) Measures so far, though I think it must be admitted that in many quarters it is felt that the older pensioners still lag very far behind current standards and there is considerable anxiety about the future, which, of course, is bound up with the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman.
Talking about undertakings, it is the Chief Secretary's job to give undertakings, not mine. I have given none, and certainly none about sweet reasonableness when, later, we come to the Finance Bill and other Measures on which more contentions and differences between the two sides might emerge. It is conceivable that something of that kind may happen next Monday, but, there again, we must wait and see.
There is one point on Clause 3 which, I hope, the Minister will look at again. The Financial Secretary may have had representations since Friday from the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association about the effect of Clause 3 (4), and I have been sent an illustration of how that subsection operates. Since it is a photographic copy of something handed out by the Department of Technical Cooperation I assume that the information I have is correct.
The conclusions one can draw from this appear to be as follows. Let us assume that a pension is payable in respect of service in Nigeria. No matter where the pension is payable, a pensioner resident in the United Kingdom will get the increase provided by the Bill. No matter where the pension is payable, if a pensioner is resident in Nigeria he will not get the benefit of the Bill's provisions. Whether he will get the benefit of the provisions if he is resident elsewhere than in the United Kingdom or Nigeria depends upon where his pension is payable.
In the case of a pension payable in the United Kingdom, if the pensioner is resident elsewhere than in the United Kingdom or Nigeria he will get the benefit of the Bill; if the pension is payable in Nigeria and he is resident elsewhere than in the United Kingdom or Nigeria he will not get the benefit. If the pension is payable elsewhere than in the United Kingdom or Nigeria, and he is resident elsewhere than in the United Kingdom or Nigeria, he will get the benefit.
At this time of night I cannot add all that up, but it certainly seems as though the place of payment of the pension governs the question whether pensioners, in certain circumstances, get the benefit of the Bill's provisions. Speaking on behalf of the Secretary for Technical Cooperation, the Minister said that in all these cases the pension could be made payable in the United Kingdom. That may be the remedy available to anyone who would be disadvantaged by having the pension payable elsewhere.
That is as far as I want to take this matter. I have made the point, and I feel certain that the representations of the Association, together with the information, are available to the Minister. If not, I have them here. Probably between now and the final stages of the

Bill in another place the Chief Secretary will look into the matter again and see whether there is anything that needs to be amended in subsection (4). It may be that it was the intention to do it in this way. If so, there must be some justification for it, but I cannot see what the reason is at the moment.
I am sorry to inflict this on the House in the Third Reading debate, but it is the last opportunity that we shall have. I now take leave of the Bill, with an expression of thanks for what is in it. In my opinion, it does not go far enough to meet the reasonable requirements of those living in retirement from the public service. Many of those affected were underpaid for years, and their pensions reflect that underpayment. The pension increases do not restore what they have lost over a long time.
There has been a big change in the level of pay in the public sector in recent years, as a result of the investigation and recommendations of various bodies and commissions. The introduction of the principle of fair comparisons in fixing pay in the public sector, especially in the middle and higher ranges, has led to substantial increases in pay. I have some extraordinary examples of the disparity between pensions payable now and those payable only six years ago, in respect of similar jobs with similar responsibilities, where big changes in pay have produced a big gap between the two levels of pension. That is where I think that a substantial grievance of many pensioners lies. Although the addition for age will modify that sense of grievance to a slight extent, it does not go far enough.
We have gone over the Bill and its Clauses almost time and again, and there can be no more to be said. We are grateful that the Measure has found a place so early in the Session. I am sure that it will bring a welcome relief to many tens of thousands of pensioners. Although at this time they will no doubt be safely in bed, and probably fast asleep, I hope that they will spare a thought for the House of Commons, which is still taking care of their interests.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — YORKSHIRE DALES NATIONAL PARK

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]

12.15 a.m.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: Tonight, I wish to raise matters in connection with the Yorkshire Dales National Park, an area of about 680 square miles, mostly situated in my constituency, which was established as a result of the passing of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949. A number of local authorities in my constituency feel that they are not adequately represented on the planning board and committees in the Park. I realise that any alteration of the Act should require legislation, which it would be out of order to propose in an Adjournment debate, but I wish to suggest that the bodies should be represented on these committees and that there should be much closer co-operation between rural and urban councils and the planning authority.
In this case, no urban councils are involved. But there are three rural councils, Skipton, Settle and Sedbergh, which are involved. In the case of these councils, which have made representations to me, the planning authority is the West Riding County Council. This is what these councils have to say about the planning committee:
The activities of the planning committee are veiled by a cloak of secrecy. They do not meet within the Park"—
in fact, they meet at a town some distance away from the Park—
the Press and public are excluded from their meetings and the minutes which are published are no more than an extremely brief report. The public have, therefore, no knowledge of the attitude of the committee towards many problems which face a National Park area. Those people who are aware of the good work done by The Peak Planning Board and the Lake District Planning Board would not include the Yorkshire Dales in the same category. Since the committee's formation, five years ago, it is difficult to point out one single action on the committee's part, other than actual planning matters, to deal with National Park problems.
I do not think that that is a strictly accurate description of the committees activities. But when I read the eleventh Report of the National Parks Commis-

sion I must say that the activities of the Yorkshire Dales and West Riding Parks Planning Committee did not show up particularly well compared with the great deal of work which has obviously been done by other parks committees throughout the country.
Under the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, the responsibility was placed with the county council, as planning authority, to delegate powers to district councils if they so wished, and one of the matters which greatly concerns the three councils I have mentioned is that they have not had planning powers delegated to them. That leads to a great deal of delay and confusion in planning matters.
These three councils told me that on 8th March, 1961, they wrote on their own behalf to the Clerk of the West Riding County Council asking for delegation of planning functions, putting forward the following reasons:
In Skipton and Settle rural districts two different systems of planning control 'operate' creating difficulties in administration in the Departments in the Council and confusion amongst the public.
I should say that part of the Skipton rural district is not in the Yorkshire Dales National Park, and that that is why it has to operate two different systems of planning, partly dealing with the area covered by the Notional Park and partly with the area that is not.
The councils said:
The present system of delegation works well as a developer can obtain all the information he requires from the District Council. In the Park area two enquiries have to be made. The present system is wasteful of time, not only from the point of view of the members, but also officers. The present system causes delay.
I had brought to my not co recently in my constituency delays of un to two years in obtaining planning permission for quite simple matters and that has quite a frustrating effect on people living in the area, particularly when the planning applications have to do with a commercial undertaking where business activity is involved, and employment in the area is not easy to come by. This certainly leads to a great deal of frustration.
Having made, in March, this application to the West Riding County Council for delegated planning functions, the


councils received a letter on 31st May from the Clerk of the West Riding County Council informing them that the committee did not feel able to accede to the request for delegation, but no reasons were given. This was put by another council letter to me, which says:
…if the rural council make a recommendation on a planning proposal before them (as they are requested to do) and the Park Planning Committee decide to ignore this recommendation, no word as to why a different decision is reached is sent to the rural council, and the only information the latter have is on receipt of a carbon copy of the notice of decision by the Park Planning Committee.
The Minister will see that these local authorities feel that they are not sufficiently in touch with the planning authority and that, in some ways, local wishes can be ignored.
Under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, too, provision was made for Exchequer grants up to 75 per cent. on certain work carried out within the National Parks and, again, we have little evidence of anything being done in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. In this connection, another criticism I have had from one of the councils is that
The West Riding County Council have been extremely dilatory in preparing the footpaths map under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, so far they have only reached the stage of considering objections to the draft map. This is 13 years after the Act came into force. There is a general lack of information about footpaths in the area and the National Parks Committee are apparently against providing signposts.
There are other matters that the committees are empowered to provide for—car parks, which are very important, lay-bys, the removal of eyesores, the planting of trees, and so on.
I discussed this matter in my local village and a number of villages in the Dales recently. The most important item which they talked about was the provision of public conveniences. This is a very important item in the villages. The establishment of a Dales National Park has encouraged thousands of people to come from the towns at weekends to the Dales, but no provision has been made in this respect. This is a very serious problem. It is a great strain on local hospitality in private residences and is a menace in the countryside. I referred to this recently as one of the

scandals of the Dales. I hope that the Minister will use his influence and urge the West Riding County Council to tackle this very serious problem with the utmost speed. As National Parks develop, as they become more popular, and as their facilities become better known, large numbers of people will come to them. This is one of the matters which must be tackled.
The burden of my remarks tonight is that the local authorities in the area—the rural councils—feel that they should be in much closer contact with the planning authority. There should not he a veil of secrecy over the activities of the parks committee. Local people are quite prepared to play their part. Many would like to see tourists attracted to the area. There is now less opportunity to earn a living in country districts. The labour force has been reduced as a result of mechanisation and other things. A flourishing tourist industry would be for the benefit of all concerned.
The countryside must be protected for those who live there and the amenities must be preserved for those who visit the area for recreation. A spokesman for one council sums up the situation very well by saying this:
At the moment there is a feeling of mutual suspicion. The councils feel that the Committee is not really trying and, I think, the Committee feel that the councils themselves are perhaps too"—
unaesthetic—
to be given the opportunity of dealing with national parks matters.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to convey some of these thoughts to the Minister so that some directions can be given to the county council to see what it can do to meet the wishes and fall in with the desires of those local councils which represent the areas concerned.

12.28 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): In considering the matters which my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) has raised it is necessary to keep in mind the purposes for which the National Parks were established. They were, first, to preserve for posterity the very considerable areas of outstanding natural beauty where these form a relatively


large single unit and, secondly, to enable, and indeed to encourage, their enjoyment for out-door exercise and recreation by the nation as a whole. These are the national interests involved.
It is of some interest to remember that the Hobhouse Committee, on which the legislation was largely based, recommended that half the members of each park authority should be nominated by my right hon. Friend and half by county councils on behalf of local interests. The Act, however, reduced the proportion nominated by my right hon. Friend to one-third and did so with the deliberate intention of shifting the balance in favour of the representatives of those who live, and, in many cases, earn their living, in these areas. For my part, I am certain that that was the right approach.
Though the attraction of many of these areas no doubt results in large measure from the wildness of the countryside, I suspect that only a few of them do not owe at least some of their beauty to the work of man. We do well to remember that but for the generations of sheep farmers, many of these hillsides would be covered with birch, gorse, scrub, and so on, which would blur the outlines of hill and dale instead of giving open views and the variety which is such an important characteristic of these areas. I have no doubt, too, that, in the right places and in the right circumstances, the forester has played his part.
It is inevitable in this highly industrialised island that many of our people should become increasingly urbanised. They do not perhaps recognise often enough how much they owe to the people who live in these areas and their contribution to the beauty which the various preservation societies are anxious to preserve, and gain access to for the benefit of the townspeople. Thus, I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend in his championship of the local people in the management of the National Parks in which they live and I am glad to have this opportunity of saying so.
Nevertheless, we must bear in mind, as I have said, that it was in recognition of this interest that the nominated element of these Park authorities was confined to one-third, leaving two-thirds to be found by county councils to represent

local interests. It is to be remembered that the idea of attracting people from outside to enjoy these areas is a fundamental part of the concept of the National Park. As my hon. Friend recalled, the Act was passed in 1949 and followed only two years after the Town and Country Planning Act by which Parliament decided that the responsibility for planning matters, outside the county boroughs, should be with the county councils. I believe that that has turned out to be basically the right approach.
Certainly, what might be called the positive side of planning—that is, the preparation of development plans, and so on—undoubtedly requires to go very much wider than the average county district and requires a staff which I do not think many county districts are suited to provide. It is significant that in preparing the basic framework within which local planning authorities must build their development plan, the tendency today is towards larger areas rather than smaller ones, and this is inevitable.
For the negative side of planning—that is, the consideration of individual applications and enforcement of control—there are powers of delegation to county districts. But whether or not a county council decides to use these powers is, except in the case of the larger county districts, purely a matter for their discretion and my right hon. Friend does not interfere with the exercise of that discretion, although he does require schemes of delegation to be submitted to him for approval. I would remind my hon. Friend that this is the pattern of planning control over the whole country and that it must be remembered that there are in many administrative counties, areas of outstanding natural beauty other than those which have been included in the National Parks.
I am bound to say that I find it a little difficult to accept that there is a special case for county district participation in planning in those areas that have been designated as National Parks. Indeed, that designation has deliberately given them a national and, therefore, a rather wider status and I think that one must expect to find this reflected in the planning arrangements. My hon. Friend may perhaps argue that planning control should be in all cases delegated to


county districts. That is a much wider and a different problem. I would only say, in passing, that there are two quite definite schools of thought on this matter and I would not think that the case is overwhelmingly in favour of the school of thought that my hon. Friend appears to support.
As for the Yorkshire Dales National Park, the matter is complicated by the fact that it lies across the boundary between two administrative counties, the North and the West Riding. This of course is in no way unique and indeed it is the exception with our National Parks to find them within the boundaries of a single county. It was for this reason no doubt that the Act contemplated that the normal governing body should be the joint planning hoard. Nevertheless, as things have turned out, as a result of the opposition of the county councils in whose area parts of National Parks fell, this has only been achieved in the Peak National Park and the Lakes National Park. In general, therefore, it is true to say that over the other eight National Parks the county councils have retained control.
By and large, they have used their powers of delegation in the areas within the National Park in the same way as they have applied those powers in other parts of their counties. Broadly speaking, as my hon. Friend probably fully appreciates, county councils either retain their planning control powers, or else they delegate them to county districts; where they retain them they sometimes decentralise to sub-committees on an area basis on which representatives of county districts serve.
In the Yorkshire Dales Park, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the two county councils adopt different methods. This is a little unfortunate. In the North Riding part of the Park planning control is exercised on the area sub-committee decentralisation basis with representatives of the county council and country district councils, whereas in the West Riding part the powers have been retained by the county council. In these circumstances the Yorkshire Dales Park Committee, which, in effect, takes the place of a joint board, has therefore only advisory powers. It covers the whole of the Park: it has 18 members of whom my right hon. Friend nominates six. It

advises the county councils on the exercise of their functions in relation to the Park and acts as the co-ordinating body for park policy matters common to both county council areas. But it is not and cannot be a planning authority.
These planning functions are carried out by a separate planning committee of each county council, each of which has six members nominated by my right hon. Friend, and three of these six in each case also serve on the joint advisory committee. In that part of the Park falling in the North Riding there is, as I say, decentralisation. Although the West Riding Committee has retained all the powers delegated to it by the county council and does not include representatives of the county districts, I do not think that it can be said that the views of the county district councils are ignored. I certainly do not think that it can be relevant where the planning committee sits.
Other planning authorities are not always as free with their publicity as, perhaps, some of us think they should be. This is not unique to the planning authority which my hon. Friend has in mind, although he knows, I think, that the question of how much publicity is given is also within the discretion of planning authorities and is not a matter in which my right hon. Friend interferes other than to give general guidance, as he has done in a recent circular. I have no doubt that the terms of that circular are, broadly, followed by the planning body in question.
In the present case, I understand, each application for development is brought before the appropriate district council and I am assured that any recommendation which it makes is taken into account by the planning committee before a decision is reached. The county council also reserves on the planning committee three places for the county councillors who represent the electoral districts which fall wholly or partly within the park. Those, I believe, are Sedbergh, Settle and Craven.
have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend in his complaint that the county districts exercise delegated planning powers in respect of their areas which do not fall within the park and not with regard to those areas which do. At first sight, this is illogical and may initially give rise to confusion among the


public. Nevertheless, I would have thought that over the years it would become a matter of general knowledge which planning authority dealt with which part of the area and that with good will, there need not be great delay in forwarding applications should they, in error, be sent to the county district offices instead of to the county planning office.
I am sorry to hear about the two-year delay. My hon. Friend will know, however, that if there is a delay of over two months in giving a decision, a right of appeal arises. If, however, he thinks that these are special cases in which I can help, I shall be glad to look into them if he will let me have details.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend. I assure him that we are constantly reviewing the working of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act in the light of experience in individual parks and of the advice that we receive from the National Parks Commission. In due course, no doubt, legislation will be required to effect various improvements, but I cannot give any undertaking when such legislation is likely to be introduced or commit my right hon. Friend to any general undertaking that either planning or more general management powers will be delegated to county districts.
Turning to the problem of the provision of lavatories, my hon. Friend is

right in saying that the planning authorities have power to provide caravan sites, car parks and other amenities or facilities within the parks and that if it is necessary or desirable to provide a public lavatory in connection with that type of development, they may do so and are entitled to the 75 per cent. grant. In all other cases, public lavatories remain the responsibility of public health authorities, which are, of course, the county district councils.
Here again, the pattern is the same for the whole country. Nevertheless, I take the point made by my hon. Friend that in these areas, where people are being deliberately encouraged to come in, there may be a problem and one which is somewhat different from that in other tourist areas, such as seaside resorts, where the extra cost, no doubt, is met by the extra rateable value brought in by the trade.
I can only, once again, assure my hon. Friend that these problems are being studied in the light of the experience and advice of the National Parks Commission and that when we come to legislate we shall certainly do our best to bring about a real improvement in the light of that experience and advice; and we shall consider the criticisms which have been made by my hon. Friend and by others.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned at a quarter to One o'clock.